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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5042337, Rodriguez, in view of USPGPUB 20050235730 Brailovskiy, and in view of USPGPUB 20210237142, Sorkin.
Regarding Claim 1, Rodriguez discloses an in-line strand cutter (col. 2, 1-15), comprising:
a hydraulic cylinder (104) for applying a linear force (of the rack 102, col 6, 40-55),
a gear train 93 for translating the linear force to rotational force (of member 28; see Col. 5, 28-49);
a nose piece 24 comprising a blade assembly (84 and 83/82), wherein at least a portion of the blade assembly is mechanically coupled to the gear train to receive the rotational force (col. 5, 20-40 and col 6, 10-40; where it is disclosed that the gear 93 drives member 28, and that member 28 drives the blade 83);
and a clamp (dog 90) assembly that is mechanically coupled to the gear train such that the clamp assembly receives the rotational force (col 5, 30-45);
wherein the, nose piece, and clamp assembly are configured to be aligned along an axis parallel to a strand to be sheared by the blade assembly during post- tensioning of concrete (fig and col 3, 60-67 and col. 4, 20-23).
Rodriguez lacks: Feature I The cylinder configured to be connected to an external hydraulic circuit and Feature II lacks the hydraulic cylinder being aligned along the axis parallel to the nose piece, clamp assembly and shear axis.
Regarding Feature I, Brailovskiy discloses a portable powered hydraulic cylinder apparatus, in the same field of endeavor as the hydraulic powered cylinder in the present invention tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes an external hydraulic circuit, par 0016, in order to power tools of various types with a stroke-consistent design, par 0002.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rodriguez by using the external portable hydraulic device of Brailovskiy in place of the non-interchangeable / non portable drive of Rodriguez, of in order to not only power the Rodriguez tool, but also power other tools with the same drive, as taught in Brailovskiy.
Regarding Feature II Sorkin discloses a cable shear in the same field of endeavor as the cable shearing device - tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a cylinder power assembly 17 that is coaxial with a shear axis and nose part 7 of the assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rodriguez by changing the orientation of the cylinder thereof from being perpendicular to the nose to being coaxial there with in order to allow the device to work on certain cramped workspaces which would not otherwise be available with the orthogonal orientation of Rodriguez.
Regarding claim 2, in Rodriguez the blade assembly comprising comprises a rotational shear blade assembly (82/83) and a fixed blade (85), wherein and the rotational shear blade is mechanically coupled to the gear train and the rotational shear blade is configured to rotate relative to the fixed blade when the rotational shear blade is driven by the gear train (col. 4, 30-45).
Regarding claim 3, in Rodriguez the nose piece further comprises a throat configured to fit over the strand (16 which fits over the strands 10) and the clamp assembly further comprising a strand channel configured to fit over the strand (space in which the strand is received in the dog 90).
Regarding claim 4, in Rodriguez the nose piece is located at one end of the in-line strand cutter (left in fig. 2-3)and the clamp assembly is located opposite the nose piece on a second end of the in-line strand cutter (right in fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, in Rodriguez wherein the in-line strand cutter is portable (since it can be used on different concrete assemblies; col. 3, 58-68, col. 4 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 7, in Rodriguez, the strand is horizontal (see fig. 5) the nose piece, and clamp assembly are aligned along an axis parallel to the strand (fig 5);
And the hydraulic cylinder (as modified above over Sorkin) is also parallel to and aligned on the same axis as the nose and the clamp thereof; See claim 1 modification discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, in Rodriguez, the use of the tool thereof can include, the strand being vertical and the, nose piece, and clamp assembly being aligned along an axis parallel to the strand (e.g. when the strand is extending from a concrete structure that faces up. Also, per the modification in Claim 1 above, the cylinder is also aligned in this orientation. Parallel to the nose piece and the clamp.
Regarding claim 10, in Rodriguez, the strand has multiple strands (col. 1, 38-55).
Regarding claim 11, Rodriguez discloses an in-line strand cutter (fig 3 col. 2, 1-15),
comprising:
a cylinder 104 for applying a linear force (of the rack 102, col 6, 40-55);
a gear train 93 for translating the linear force to rotational force (of the member 28; see Col. 5, 28-49);
a nose piece 24 comprising a blade assembly (84 and 83/82),
wherein at least a portion of the blade assembly is mechanically coupled to the gear train to receive the rotational force (col. 5, 20-40 and col 6, 10-40; where it is disclosed that the gear 93 drives member 28, and that member 28 drives the blade 83), and the blade assembly comprises a rotational shear blade assembly (col. 5, 20-40 and col 6, 10-40; where it is disclosed that the gear 93 drives member 28, and that member 28 drives the blade 83) and a fixed blade 84, and the rotational shear blade is mechanically coupled to the gear train and the rotational shear blade is configured to rotate relative to the fixed blade when the rotational shear blade is driven by the gear train (col. 5, 20-40 and col 6, 10-40; where it is disclosed that the gear 93 drives member 28, and that member 28 drives the blade 83;); and
a clamp assembly 90 that is mechanically coupled to the gear train such that the clamp assembly receives the rotational force (col. 5, 30-45); wherein the nose piece, and clamp assembly are configured to be aligned along an axis parallel to a strand to be sheared by the blade assembly.
Rodriguez lacks: Feature I The cylinder configured to be connected to an external hydraulic circuit and Feature II lacks the hydraulic cylinder being aligned along the axis parallel to the nose piece, clamp assembly and shear axis.
Regarding Feature I, Brailovskiy discloses a portable powered hydraulic cylinder apparatus, in the same field of endeavor as the hydraulic powered cylinder in the present invention tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes an external hydraulic circuit, par 0016, in order to power tools of various types with a stroke-consistent design, par 0002.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rodriguez by using the external portable hydraulic device of Brailovskiy in place of the non interchangeable / non portable drive of Rodriguez, of in order to not only power the Rodriguez tool, but also power other tools with the same drive, as taught in Brailovskiy.
Regarding Feature II Sorkin discloses a cable shear in the same field of endeavor as the cable shearing device - tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a cylinder power assembly 17 that is coaxial with a shear axis and nose part 7 of the assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rodriguez by changing the orientation of the cylinder thereof from being perpendicular to the nose to being coaxial there with in order to allow the device to work on certain cramped workspaces which would not otherwise be available with the orthogonal orientation of Rodriguez.
Regarding claim 12, in Rodriguez, the nose piece further comprising a throat 16 configured to fit over the strand (figure 2-3) and the clamp assembly further comprising a strand channel configured to fit over the strand (space in which the strand is received in the dog 90).
Regarding claim 13, in Rodriguez, the nose piece is located at one end of the in-line strand cutter and the clamp assembly is located opposite the nose piece on a second end of the in-line strand cutter (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, in Rodriguez, the in-line strand cutter is portable (since it can be used on different concrete assemblies; col. 3, 58-68, col. 4 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 15, in Rodriguez, the strand is horizontal (see fig. 5) the nose piece, and clamp assembly are aligned along an axis parallel to the strand (fig 5);
And the hydraulic cylinder (as modified above over Sorkin) is also parallel to and aligned on the same axis as the nose and the clamp thereof; See claim 1 modification discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, in Rodriguez, the use of the tool thereof can include, the strand being vertical and the, nose piece, and clamp assembly being aligned along an axis parallel to the strand (e.g. when the strand is extending from a concrete structure that faces up. Also, per the modification in Claim 1 above, the cylinder is also aligned in this orientation. Parallel to the nose piece and the clamp.
Regarding claim 17, in Rodriguez, the strand has multiple strands, (col. 1, 38-55).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Brailovskiy and Sorkin, applied to: Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of USPN 13245145, Buford and EP2883504 A2, Richard.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Rodriguez lacks: a gear rack mechanically coupled to a piston rod of the cylinder; the gear rack being mated with a first spur gear (first gear in the series); the first spur gear being mated with a first miter gear (second gear in the series) that is oriented in a matching orientation to the first spur gear; the first miter gear being mated with a second miter gear (third gear in the series) oriented at ninety degrees to the first miter gear; the second miter gear being mechanically coupled to a second spur gear (fourth gear in the series) in a same orientation as the second miter gear; the second spur gear being mated with a third spur gear (fifth gear in the series) that is mechanically coupled to at least a portion of the blade assembly and the clamp assembly.
However, in Rodriguez it is disclosed that the gear train thereof is connected to the clamp and blade thereof (see claim 1 rejection).
Also, Chambers discloses that the gear train thereof comprises a sliding rack c, that is attached to the piston C in order to convert the reciprocating linear motion of the cylinder to the rotating tool blade J thereof via a gear train (gears G, h and k), where the rack c is mated with a first gear, the first gear mated with a second gear that is orientated in a matching orientation to the first gear, the second gear coupled to a third gear, the third gear coupled to a fourth gear, and the fourth gear coupled to a fifth gear that is mechanically coupled to the blade assembly (fig 1) in order to have the device be powered in a manner in which the length of the stroke of the piston is sufficient to continue the operation for a time long enough for practical purposes (pg. 2, 5-15).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rodriguez by having the cylinder provide linear force to the gear train for translating the linear force to rotary force of the blade via gear train thereof comprises a sliding rack c, that is attached to the piston C in order to convert the reciprocating linear motion of the cylinder to the rotating tool blade J thereof via a gear train (gears G, h and k), where the rack c is mated with a first gear, the first gear mated with a second gear that is orientated in a matching orientation to the first gear, the second gear coupled to a third gear, the third gear coupled to a fourth gear, and the fourth gear coupled to a fifth gear that is mechanically coupled to the blade assembly, in order to have the device be powered in a manner in which the length of the stroke of the piston is sufficient to continue the operation for a time long enough for practical purposes , as taught by Chambers.
However Rodriguez as modified in view of Chambers still lacks specifics as to the types of gears that are used and lack certain gears of the gear set being oriented at normal orientation relative to other gears, and thus are lacks (A): the third gear in the series oriented at ninety degrees to the second gear; the third gear in the series in a same orientation as the third gear in the series and (B) the first gear being a sur gear, the second gear being a miter gear, the third gear being a miter gear, and the fourth and fifth gears being spur gears.
As to feature (A) Buford discloses a gear train assembly in a cutting device which converts motion from one portion of the machine to another portion of the machine, analogous to the gear set shown in Chambers in which gear G converts rotary motion to a blade J via several intermediary gears, and discloses that in such an assembly a gear 30 that is rotating in one axis is connected to a gear 34 which is connected to the machine at 90 degrees to the gear 30 which gear connects to a gear 36 and gear 46 which impart rotary machine to a cutting tool 50, and discloses that the orientation of one gear being perpendicular to another is for imparting rotary motion from a gear that is on one axis to a tool part and gears that are on a perpendicular axis thereto (col. 2, lined 40-50).
In Rodriguez, (and in Rodriguez as modified above), the axis of the output shaft is parallel to but offset from the axis of the rotary tool, thus, in modifying Rodriguez to have the motion be linear translated to rotary motion, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make at least one of the gears of the gear train be oriented at an axis that is orthogonal to the axis of another gear in that series, in order to allow the motion to be transmitted to the toolhead that is offset from the output shaft as taught by Buford.
As to feature (B) pertaining to the specifics of the types of gears to be used, Richard discloses that “It is contemplated that all gears of the present disclosure may be variously configured as, such as, for example, spur gears, helical gears, miter gears, worm gears, anti-backlash gears, bevel gears, cluster gears, differential end gears, composite spur gears, and other gears known in the art”, par 0081.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first gear being a sur gear, the second gear being a miter gear, the third gear being a miter gear, and the fourth and fifth gears being spur gears, since choosing the gears to mesh in a gear train assembly is within the realm of ordinary skill of one in the art, as disclosed by Richard, thus such artisans would be able to configure the gears to include the first gear being a sur gear, the second gear being a miter gear, the third gear being a miter gear, and the fourth and fifth gears being spur gears.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/07/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims as the claims have now been amended, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously cited art lacks the tools thereof being used to cut a strand during a post- tensioning of concrete. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brailovskiy/Rodriguez.
Also, the updated search has obviated the indication of allowable subject matter, previously indicated for claim 2 as previously filed. Claim 2 and new filed Claim 11 are currently rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 6257221 2021023714220190232481 2776481 20050235730 3724302 disclose state of the art shearing assemblies. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Eiseman can be reached on 571-270-3818. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724