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 .
Detailed Action
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
2. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) In claim 2, there is no showing or description of how an adjustment of the alignment unit 14a is coupled to an adjustment of the cutting unit 12a.
(2) In clam 3, there is no description of how “self-adjustment” of the alignment unit is accomplished.
(3) In claim 6, there is no showing or description of how the cutting angle adjustment is accomplished.
(4) In claim 8, there is no description of how the soft mode of the cutting unit is achieved.
(5) In claim 9, there is no description of how two directions of rotation of the cutting unit is accomplished.
(6) In claim 10, there is no description of how two different cutting profiles is produced by the cutting unit.
(7) In claim 14, there is no description of how an alignment axis of the alignment unit is adjustable relative to the manual machine tool.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8-10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 2, it is not understood how an adjustment of the alignment unit is coupled to an adjustment of the cutting unit.
(2) In claim 3, it is unclear how the alignment unit is configured for “self-adjustment” to a cable diameter of a cable.
(3) In claim 6, it is not clear how the cutting angle of at least one cutting element is adjusted.
(4) In claim 8, it is unclear how the cutting unit is configured to operate in a soft mode.
(5) In claim 9, it is not clear how the cutting unit is configured to operate in two directions of rotation.
(6) In claim 10, it is unclear how the cutting unit is configured to produce two different cutting profiles.
(7) In claim 14, it is not understood how an alignment of the alignment unit is adjustable relative to the manual machine tool.
(8) The scope of claim 15 is confusing. While the preamble calls for a method for operating a tool, however, there is no method step of operating is cited. It is not understood how a tool is operated.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
1. 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
2. Claim limitations “cutting unit” and “alignment unit” (both cited in claim 1), “display unit” (cited in claim 5), “sensor unit” (cited in claim 7) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use generic placeholders “cutting unit”, “alignment unit”, “display unit”, “sensor unit” coupled with functional language “configured to cut a sheath of a cable”, “configured to align the cable and be adjustable so as to accommodate different cable diameters”, “configured to display an adjustment of the alignment unit” and “configured to sense at least one process characteristic during stripping of cable”, respectively, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier. The terms “cutting unit”, “alignment unit”, display unit” and “sensor unit” are generic placeholders and are not recognized as the name of a structure but are merely substitutes for the term "means".
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claims 1, 5 and 7 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (see paragraphs [0028], [0033]-[0034], [0042] and [0044] of the specification) that achieve the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepan (U.S. Patent No. 5,010,797).
Regarding claim 1, Stepan discloses an alignment unit (see Figs.1-2) configured to align a cable for a cutting operation. Stepan further teaches combing an alignment unit with a cutting unit (see Fig.11) for stripping a cable (see column 1, lines 7-10), wherein the alignment units and the cutting unit are mounted one behind the other (see column 4, lines 64-66), and it is inherent there is a base body unit or it would have been obvious to provide one for mounting the alignment unit and the cutting unit thereon.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Stepan’s Figs.1-2 by including a cutting unit and a base body unit for mounting the alignment unit and the cutting unit thereon and for allowing aligning a cable for cutting by the cutting unit as taught by Stepan’s Fig.11.
Regarding claim 2, Stepan thus modified has an adjustment of the alignment unit coupled to an adjustment of the cutting unit.
Regarding claim 3, Stepan’s alignment unit (Figs.1-2) is configured for self-adjustment to a cable diameter of a cable.
Regarding claim 4, Stepan shows at least one spring element (21), wherein the alignment unit is at least partially connected (directly or indirectly) to the base body unit via the spring element (21).
Regarding claim 15, Stepan’s tool as modified in clam 1 is to be operated in a method of operating the tool.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepan (U.S. Patent No. 5,010,797) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sinzig et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0151930, hereinafter “Sinzig”).
Regarding claim 5, Stepan as modified above lacks a display unit configured to display an adjustment of the alignment unit.
Sinzig teaches it is desirable to include a tool with a display to outputting at least one adjustment parameter of an adjusting unit of the tool (see paragraph [0021], lines 11-13) to enable an adjustment to be monitored or checked in a convenient manner.
In view of Sinzig’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Stepan by including a display unit for the advantage set forth.
4. Claims 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepan (U.S. Patent No. 5,010,797) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bilbrey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,665,603, hereinafter “Bilbrey”).
Regarding claims 6, 9 and 10, Stepan as modified has the cutting unit including at least one cutting element but fails to mention the cutting element having an adjustable cutting angle or the cutting unit is configured to operate in two directions of rotation and to produce two different cutting profiles.
Bilbrey shows a cable stripping tool having a cutting element (24) with an adjustable cutting angle and operating in two directions of rotation to produce two different cutting profiles (see column 3, lines 52-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to further modify Stepan by making the cutting angle of the cutting element adjustable, operable in two directions of rotation for producing two different cutting profiles as desired as taught by Bilbrey.
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepan (U.S. Patent No. 5,010,797) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,949,458, hereinafter “Davis”) and Wittke (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0181951).
Regarding claim 7, Stepan as modified above lacks a sensor unit configured to sense at least one process characteristic during stripping of the cable.
Davis teaches it is desirable to provide a cutting tool with an acceleration detection means for detecting of violent movement of the tool (see column 1, lines 23-30), and Wittke shows a sensor unit comprising an accelerometer sensor (see paragraph [0053], lines 4-5) for detecting acceleration characteristic of a cutting tool during use.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Stepan by providing the tool with a sensor unit such as that of Wittke’s to detect of violent movement of the too during use as taught by Davis.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepan (U.S. Patent No. 5,010,797) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0173650, hereinafter “Shinto”).
Regarding claim 8, Stepan as modified above does not have the cutting unit configured to operate in a soft mode.
Shinto shows a power tool (1) including a soft mode that suppresses output (see paragraph [0047], lines 11-13).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have Stepan’s cutting unit operate in a soft mode that reduces/limits the amount of output produced for a smoother and gentler operation as taught by Shinto.
7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepan (U.S. Patent No. 5,010,797) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mezher (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0283392, hereinafter “Mezher”).
Regarding claim 11, Stepan as modified above lacks a lighting unit configured to illuminate a cutting area of the cutting unit.
Mezher teaches it is desirable to provide a cutting tool with a lighting unit comprising LED (106, see Fig.1) to facilitate illuminating a cutting area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Stepan by equipping the tool with an LED for illuminating a cutting area as taught by Mezher.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepan (U.S. Patent No. 5,010,797) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Storm et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0126534, hereinafter “Storm”).
Regarding claim 12, Stepan as modified above lacks a removable cable stop.
Strom shows a cable stripper comprising a removable cable stop (14, see Fig.23).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Stepan by including a removable cable stop in the tool to limit the extent to which an cable is introduced longitudinally thereinto as taught by Strom.
9. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepan (U.S. Patent No. 5,010,797) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Manser et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0152009, hereinafter “Manser”).
Regarding claim 13, Stepan as modified above is not designed for use with a manual machine tool.
Manser teaches a cable stripping tool (1) designed to be attached to a manual machine tool (e.g., an electric screw driver, see paragraph [0074], line 11).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Stepan by having the cable stripping tool designed to be attached to the manual machine tool and driven by the manual machine tool to form a machine tool system and allow different types of tools to be used with the manual machine tool for different tasks.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Stepan by making an alignment axis of the alignment unit adjustable relative to the manual machine tool, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284, CCPA 1954.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0089815 shows a cable stripper (20) equipped with a depth stop assembly (42, see Fig.2) for setting the amount of cable seated within the cable stripper (20, see paragraph [0029], lines 8-10).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0052514 is cited to show an apparatus for cutting, centering or retaining a cable in a stripp9ng head.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0316966 shows a cable stripping assembly (10, see Fig.1) comprising a cable stripping tool (12) having a head (30) equipped with a depth stop system (42) to adjust a strip length of the cable stripping operation (e.g., an amount of cable jacket that is removed by the stripping tool 12, see paragraph [0067], lines 1-4).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights