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
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a pair of wire grippers each configured by the wire gripper according to claim 1” should be changed to “a pair of wire grippers, each configured as the wire gripper according to claim 1”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “thereof and being configured” should be changed to “thereof, and the expander being configured”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “the pair of wire grippers is brought close to each other and is separated from each other” should be changed to “the wire grippers are brought close to each other and are separated from each other”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 12 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 12, the phrase “an expander having the pair of wire grippers coupled to both ends” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element having “both ends”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “an expander having the pair of wire grippers coupled to both ends” as “an expander having two ends, wherein each one of the wire grippers is coupled to one of the ends”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carpenter (US4993287A).
Regarding claim 1, Carpenter discloses a wire gripper adapted to be used to grip a wire-like body (abstract), comprising:
a wire gripping portion including a first wire gripping body (fig.6: (48)) and a second wire gripping body (fig.6: (50)) disposed opposite to the first wire gripping body;
a displacement mechanism (fig.6: (56) and (58)) configured to relatively displace the first wire gripping body and the second wire gripping body between a first position allowing the wire-like body to be gripped and a second position allowing the gripped wire-like body to be released; and a drive mechanism including a motor (fig.6: (98)) that actuates the displacement mechanism (col.1 last 5 lines-col.2 line 11; col.4 lines 23-55; and claim 21).
Regarding claim 10, Carpenter discloses a power supply part that supplies power to at least the motor (fig.1: (22)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter (US4993287A) in view of Reinertz (US4185522A).
Regarding claim 11, Carpenter does not disclose a wire type detection mechanism that detects a type of the wire-like body gripped by the wire gripping portion.
Reinertz teaches a wire-processing device, comprising:
a wire type detection mechanism that detects a type of a wire (abstract).
Both of prior arts are Carpenter and Reinertz are related to a wire-processing device
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Carpenter by a wire type detection mechanism that detects a type of the wire as taught by Reinertz, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]; thereby having a wire type detection mechanism that detects a type of the wire-like body gripped by the wire gripping portion.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaki (US20150232314A1) in view of Carpenter (US4993287A).
Regarding claim 12, Nagaki discloses a wire tensioning device (abstract), comprising:
a pair of wire grippers (paragraph 0111 and fig.8: (10)); and
an expander (fig.15: (18)) having the pair of wire grippers coupled to both ends thereof and being configured so that the pair of wire grippers gripping the wire-like body is brought close to each other and is separated from each other (paragraphs 0111-0113).
Nagaki does not disclose each configured by the wire gripper according to claim 1.
Carpenter teaches the wire gripper according to claim 1 (see the rejction of claim 1 above);
Both of prior arts are Nagaki and Carpenter are related to a wire-processing device
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the wire grippers of the apparatus of Nagaki to be each configured by the wire gripper according to claim 1 as taught by Carpenter, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the closet prior arts are Coleman (US4711684A), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “the displacement mechanism includes a pair of first link pieces rotatably attached to the first wire gripping body, a pair of second link pieces rotatably attached to the second wire gripping body, a first connection structure that rotatably connects one of the first link pieces and one of the second link pieces corresponding to the one of the first link pieces, and a second connection structure that rotatably connects another of the first link pieces and another of the second link pieces corresponding to the other of the first link pieces, and the drive mechanism is configured to bring the first connection structure and the second connection structure close to each other and to separate the first connection structure from the second connection structure by rotation of the motor, so that the first wire gripping body and the second wire gripping body are displaced between the first position and the second position” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 3-9 are depended from claim 2.
Claim 2 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights