DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8 January 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the previous Claim objections. The previous Claim objections have been withdrawn. A new Claim objection has been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection. The previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn. A new 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8 January 2026 with respect to the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 102 and 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 8 January 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 3, and 16-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 8-13, and 16-26 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 24, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the adjustable portion.”
In claim 26, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the plurality of openings positioned on the fixed portion.”
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 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the lock pin is a spring pin.” Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, which recites the claimed lock pin as an alternative to a threaded fastener. The scope of claim 10 is indefinite because it is not clear if the threaded fastener is selected according to claim 1, then whether the lock pin is within the claim scope of 10. For the purpose of the examination, claim 10 will be interpreted as: “wherein the lock comprises the lock pin and wherein the lock pin is a spring pin.”
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, 8-9, 16-18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jordan et al. (US-20160145069-A1; hereinafter Jordan ‘069).
Regarding claim 1, Jordan ‘069 teaches a wire-feeder system (fig. 1; “electrical wire,” para 0020; “unwinding” in para 0020 is construed as feeding) comprising:
a spool hub (tubular member 92, fig. 1) configured to support a wire spool (spool 30, fig. 1); and
a multiple-angle hub stand (plates 64 and post assembly 50, fig. 1) having an adjustable portion (post assembly 50, fig. 1) coupled to a fixed portion (plates 64, fig. 1) and wherein an entirety of the adjustable portion is configured to pivot relative to the fixed portion via a hinge (post assembly 50 pivots relative to plates 64 via bolt 56, fig. 3 and para 0025; Specification of the instant application discloses that the hinge can be a “pivot pin” or a “rod;” the bolt 56 is construed as a rod), wherein the adjustable portion is configured to support the spool hub (post assembly 50 supports tubular member 90, fig. 1) and the fixed portion is configured to fixedly attach to a mounting surface (plates 64 attach to the surfaces of elongated member 42, fig. 1; “welds,” para 0022),
wherein the multiple-angle hub stand comprises a lock (pin 58, key 59, openings 66 and 51, fig. 3; openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) configured to secure the spool hub relative to the mounting surface at one of a plurality of selectable angles (angle of 180 degrees when pinned to opening 51 and angle of 90 degrees when pinned to opening 53, fig. 4) , the lock comprises a first opening in the adjustable portion (openings 66, fig. 3) and a second opening in the fixed portion (openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) corresponding to a selectable angle of said plurality of selectable angles (angle of 180 degrees when pinned to opening 51 and angle of 90 degrees when pinned to opening 53, fig. 4), and
wherein the first opening and the second opening are configured to align and to receive a lock pin (pin 58, fig. 3) or a threaded fastener (not explicitly disclosed) to secure the spool hub at the selectable angle (para 0026).
Jordan ‘069, fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
470
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Jordan ‘069 teaches wherein the first opening (openings 66, fig. 3) is one of a plurality of openings (there are two openings 66, fig. 3) formed in the adjustable portion (post assembly 50, fig. 3) and arranged radially about the hinge (holes 66 are arranged radially relative to the bolt 56, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Jordan ‘069 teaches wherein the second opening (openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) is one of a plurality of openings formed in the fixed portion (plates 46, fig. 4) and arranged radially about the hinge (openings 51 and 53 are arranged radially relative to the opening 49, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Jordan ‘069 teaches further comprising a handle (handle 125, fig. 7) coupled to the adjustable portion (assembly 50, fig. 7) of the multiple-angle hub stand.
Regarding claim 17, Jordan ‘069 teaches a wire-feeder system (fig. 1; “electrical wire,” para 0020; “unwinding” in para 0020 is construed as feeding) comprising:
a spool hub (tubular member 92, fig. 1) configured to support a wire spool (spool 30, fig. 1); and
a multiple-angle hub stand (plates 64 and post assembly 50, fig. 1) comprising an adjustable portion (post assembly 50, fig. 1) pivotally coupled to a fixed portion (plates 64, fig. 1) via a hinge (bolt 56, fig. 3; Specification of the instant application discloses that the hinge can be a “pivot pin” or a “rod;” the bolt 56 is construed as a rod), such that an entirety of the adjustable portion pivots with respect to the fixed portion (post assembly 50 pivots relative to plates 64 via bolt 56, fig. 3 and para 0025),
wherein the multiple-angle hub stand is configured to support the spool hub and the wire spool (post assembly 50 supports tubular member 90 and spool 30, fig. 1) relative to a mounting surface of a base platform (plates 64 attach to the surfaces of elongated member 42, fig. 1) at one of a plurality of selectable angles (angle of 180 degrees when pinned to opening 51 and angle of 90 degrees when pinned to opening 53, fig. 4); and
a lock (pin 58, key 59, openings 66 and 51, fig. 3; openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) configured to secure the adjustable portion relative to the fixed portion at a selected one of the plurality of selectable angles (angle of 180 degrees when pinned to opening 51 and angle of 90 degrees when pinned to opening 53, fig. 4), the lock comprises a first opening in the adjustable portion (openings 66, fig. 3) and a plurality of openings in the fixed portion (openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) corresponding to different selectable angles of said plurality of selectable angles (angle of 180 degrees when pinned to opening 51 and angle of 90 degrees when pinned to opening 53, fig. 4), and
wherein the first opening and a respective one of the plurality of openings are configured to align and to receive a lock pin (holes 66 and holes 51/53 align to receive pin 58, figs. 3-4) or a threaded fastener (not explicitly disclosed) to secure the spool hub at a respective one of said different selectable angles (para 0026).
Regarding claim 18, Jordan ‘069 teaches wherein the lock (pin 58, key 59, openings 66 and 51, fig. 3; openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) comprises the lock pin (pin 58, fig. 3) configured to engage each of the adjustable portion (assembly 50, fig. 3) and the fixed portion (plates 46, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 25, Jordan ‘069 teaches wherein the plurality of openings (openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) is arranged radially about the hinge (openings 51 and 53 are arranged radially relative to the opening 49, fig. 4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US-20160145069-A1; hereinafter Jordan ‘069) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above and further in view of Avezaat (NL-1018182-C2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 2, Jordan ‘069 teaches wherein the spool hub (tubular member 92, fig. 1) is configured such that the wire spool is rotatable about an axis of rotation (axis through the middle of tube 90, fig. 1), and wherein the plurality of selectable angles includes an axis of rotation (horizontal axis through the center of bolt 56, fig. 3) and the mounting surface (surfaces of member 42, fig. 4) forming a 90-degree angle and a 180-degree angle (annotated in fig. 4 below).
Jordan ‘069, fig. 4 (annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
384
849
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jordan ‘069 does not explicitly disclose a 135-degree angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multiple-angle hub stands, Avezaat teaches a 135-degree angle (“45 °,” page 3; the corresponding angle construed as being 90°+45°=135°).
Avezaat, fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
712
1146
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Avezaat, by adding a hole halfway between holes 51 and 53 in plates 46, as taught by Jordan ‘069 in fig. 4, to produce an angle of 45 degrees, as taught by Avezaat, in order to use an angle that ensures the controlled unwinding of the spool, because when the spool is horizontal, then the spool will unwind relatively easy because gravity will have little effect on the unwinding, and when the spool is vertical, then the spool will unwind with much more resistance because gravity will have a significant effect on the unwinding of the spool, which can be optimized by tilting the spool based on the amount of resistance that is desired when the spool is unwound (Avezaat, bottom of page 4).
Regarding claim 23, Jordan ‘069 teaches wherein the plurality of selectable angles includes an axis of rotation (horizontal axis through the center of bolt 56, fig. 3) and the mounting surface (surfaces of member 42, fig. 4) forming a 90-degree angle and a 180-degree angle (annotated in fig. 4 above).
Jordan ‘069 does not explicitly disclose a 135-degree angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of multiple-angle hub stands, Avezaat teaches a 135-degree angle (“45 °,” page 3; the corresponding angle construed as being 90°+45°=135°).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Avezaat, by adding a hole halfway between holes 51 and 53 in plates 46, as taught by Jordan ‘069 in fig. 4, to produce an angle of 45 degrees, as taught by Avezaat, in order to use an angle that ensures the controlled unwinding of the spool, because when the spool is horizontal, then the spool will unwind relatively easy because gravity will have little effect on the unwinding, and when the spool is vertical, then the spool will unwind with much more resistance because gravity will have a significant effect on the unwinding of the spool, which can be optimized by tilting the spool based on the amount of resistance that is desired when the spool is unwound (Avezaat, bottom of page 4).
Claims 3, 11, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US-20160145069-A1; hereinafter Jordan ‘069) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above and further in view of Hinricher (US-2163039-A).
Regarding claim 3, Jordan ‘069 teaches wherein the spool hub (tubular member 92, fig. 1) is configured such that the wire spool is rotatable about an axis of rotation (axis through the middle of tube 90, fig. 1), and wherein the lock comprises a mechanism (pin 58 and key 59, fig. 3) to secure the adjustable portion (post assembly 50, fig. 1) at one of the plurality of selectable angles (angle of 180 degrees when pinned to opening 51 and angle of 90 degrees when pinned to opening 53, fig. 4).
Jordan ‘069 does not explicitly disclose a ratchet mechanism.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of controlling a wire supplied from a spool, Hinricher teaches wherein the lock (fig. 3) comprises a ratchet mechanism (ratchet teeth 55 and detent 57, fig. 3).
Hinricher, fig. 3
PNG
media_image4.png
154
184
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Hinricher, by using a detent with ratchet teeth, as taught by Hinricher, instead of the pin 58 and key 59, as taught by Jordan ‘069, because as the height of the spool increases, more force or torque will be placed on the post holding the spool, which can be mitigated by using a ratchet-spring-detent mechanism, which is designed to accommodate an increase in force at the uppermost notch in comparison to the lower notches where less force is applied (Hinricher, page 3, left column, lines 43-73).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jordan ‘069 in view of Hinricher as set forth above regarding claim 3 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Hinricher teaches wherein the lock comprises a detent (detent 57, fig. 3) positioned on the adjustable portion (lever 58, fig. 3) and a plurality of openings (notches 55, fig. 3) positioned on the fixed portion (arms 53 and 54, fig. 3) about the hinge (rocker arm 14, fig. 3), wherein the detent is configured to engage one of the plurality of openings (detent 57 engages with the notches 55, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Jordan ‘069 teaches wherein the lock comprises a mechanism (pin 58 and key 59, fig. 3) to secure an adjustable portion (post assembly 50, fig. 1) at one of the plurality of selectable angles (angle of 180 degrees when pinned to opening 51 and angle of 90 degrees when pinned to opening 53, fig. 4).
Jordan ‘069 does not explicitly disclose a ratchet mechanism.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of controlling a wire supplied from a spool, Hinricher teaches wherein the lock (fig. 3) comprises a ratchet mechanism (ratchet teeth 55 and detent 57, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Hinricher, by using a detent with ratchet teeth, as taught by Hinricher, instead of the pin 58 and key 59, as taught by Jordan ‘069, because as the height of the spool increases, more force or torque will be placed on the post holding the spool, which can be mitigated by using a ratchet-spring-detent mechanism, which is designed to accommodate an increase in force at the uppermost notch in comparison to the lower notches where less force is applied (Hinricher, page 3, left column, lines 43-73).
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US-20160145069-A1; hereinafter Jordan ‘069) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kovaleski (US-3998403-A).
Regarding claim 10, Jordan ‘069 teaches wherein the lock (pin 58, key 59, openings 66 and 51, fig. 3; openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) comprises the lock pin (pin 58, fig. 3). Jordan ‘069 does not explicitly disclose wherein the lock pin is a spring pin.
However, in the same field of endeavor of supports for spooled wire hubs, Kovaleski teaches wherein the lock pin is a spring pin (spring 106, fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Kovaleski, by using a spring, as taught by Kovaleski, with the pin 58, as taught by Jordan ‘069, in order to use a spring that biases the pin away from the carrier, so that it can be easily disengaged, facilitating a quick release when the position of the spool flange needs to be adjusted (Kovaleski, column 3, lines 54-69).
Regarding claim 12, Jordan ‘069 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a wire guide configured to guide wire from the wire spool supported on the spool hub to a drive roll.
However, in the same field of endeavor of supports for spooled wire hubs, Kovaleski teaches further comprising a wire guide (wire guide 168, fig. 11) configured to guide wire from the wire spool (spool 114, fig. 9) supported on the spool hub (spindle 48 and sleeve 50, fig. 1) to a drive roll (“coil winding equipment,” column 4, line 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Kovaleski, by using a wire guide, as taught by Kovaleski, in the wire spook stand, as taught by Jordan ‘069, in order to use a wire guide to guide the wire as it is being de-reeled for the advantage of minimizing the looseness and kinking of the wire (Kovaleski, column 5, lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of the embodiment of Jordan ‘069 in view of Kovaleski as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Kovaleski teaches wherein the wire guide (wire guide 168, fig. 11) is coupled to the mounting surface (top surface of base 132, fig. 11).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US-20160145069-A1; hereinafter Jordan ‘069) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Kovaleski (US-3998403-A).
Jordan ‘069 teaches wherein the first opening and a respective one of the plurality of openings are configured to align and to receive the fastener (holes 66 and holes 51/53 align to receive pin 58, figs. 3-4).
Jordan ‘069 does not explicitly disclose wherein the threaded fastener is configured to engage one of the adjustable portion and the fixed portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor of supports for spooled wire hubs, Kovaleski teaches wherein the threaded fastener (screw 98 and cam 100, fig. 6) is configured to engage (“tightened,” column 4, line 21) one of the adjustable portion (jaws 72, 74, and 84 as well as slider bar 82 and carrier 76, fig. 6) and the fixed portion (members 14 and 16, fig. 2; the screw 98 engages members 14 and 16 through the tightening of the cam 100 on the jaws 72 and 74, fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Kovaleski, by using a screw that tightens and secures along with a spring, as taught by Kovaleski, instead of a pin 58, as taught by Jordan ‘069, in order to use a screw that tightens towards the carrier and a spring that biases the screw away from the carrier, so that it can be securely engaged and easily disengaged, facilitating a quick release when the position of the spool flange needs to be adjusted (Kovaleski, column 3, lines 54-69).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US-20160145069-A1; hereinafter Jordan ‘069) in view of Stanzel et al. (US-20140312021-A1).
Regarding claim 20, Jordan ‘069 teaches a method for operating a multiple-angle hub stand (plates 64 and post assembly 50, fig. 1; “lifting and supporting a spool of windable material above a floor,” abstract) of a wire- feeder system (fig. 1; “electrical wire,” para 0020; “unwinding” in para 0020 is construed as feeding), the method comprising:
mounting a wire spool (spool 30 is mounted, fig. 1) to a spool hub (tubular member 92, fig. 1) of the multiple-angle hub stand, wherein the spool hub is positioned at a first selectable angle selected from a plurality of selectable angles (angle of 90 degrees when pinned to opening 53, fig. 4), wherein the multiple-angle hub stand comprises an adjustable portion (post assembly 50, fig. 1) coupled to a fixed portion (plates 64, fig. 1) via a hinge (bolt 56, fig. 3; Specification of the instant application discloses that the hinge can be a “pivot pin” or a “rod;” the bolt 56 is construed as a rod), such that an entirety of the adjustable portion pivots with respect to the fixed portion (post assembly 50 pivots relative to plates 64 via bolt 56, fig. 3 and para 0025);
adjusting (“lifted,” para 0021; para 0026), via the multiple-angle hub stand, the spool hub from the first selectable angle to a second selectable angle selected from the plurality of selectable angles (from an angle of 90 degrees with opening 53 to an angle of 180 degrees when pinned to opening 51, fig. 4),
wherein the multiple-angle hub stand comprises a lock (pin 58, key 59, openings 66 and 51, fig. 3; openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) configured to secure the spool hub relative to a mounting surface (surfaces of elongated member 42, fig. 1) at one of a plurality of selectable angles, the lock comprises a first opening in the adjustable portion (openings 66, fig. 3) and a second opening in the fixed portion (openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) corresponding to a selectable angle of said plurality of selectable angles (angle of 180 degrees when pinned to opening 51 and angle of 90 degrees when pinned to opening 53, fig. 4), and
wherein the first opening and the second opening are configured to align and to receive a lock pin (holes 66 and holes 51/53 align to receive pin 58, figs. 3-4) or a threaded fastener (not explicitly disclosed) to secure the spool hub at the selectable angle (para 0026).
Jordan ‘069 does not explicitly disclose a welding-type system; passing a welding wire from the wire spool to a welding torch via a drive roll.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of controlling a wire supplied from a spool, Stanzel teaches a welding-type system (fig. 2; “welding,” para 0019); passing a welding wire (wire 39, fig. 2; para 0004) from the wire spool (spool 14, fig. 2) to a welding torch (torch 22, fig. 1) via a drive roll (wire feeder 16, figs. 1-2).
Stanzel, fig. 2
PNG
media_image5.png
831
780
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Stanzel, by using the stand, as taught by Jordan ‘069, to support the spool 14 in the welding system 10, as taught by Stanzel, because welding systems typically consume a welding wire electrode as a workpiece is welded, where a spool of wire is loaded on the wire feeder prior to welding, for the advantage of enabling a welder to weld using a welding wire electrode for an extended period of time without interruption, as a result of using a wire spool and a wire feeder (Stanzel, para 0003).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US-20160145069-A1; hereinafter Jordan ‘069) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above and further in view of Madsen et al. (US-20080061211-A1).
Regarding claim 21, Jordan ‘069 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second opening is a crescent- shaped slot that includes, or defines, one or more pre-set marks.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of ensuring a balanced center of mass, Madsen teaches wherein the second opening (slit 38, fig. 1) is a crescent- shaped slot (as shown in fig. 1) that includes, or defines, one or more pre-set marks (opening 45, fig. 1; para 0025).
Madsen, fig. 1
PNG
media_image6.png
1057
915
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Madsen, by using an arcuate slit 38, as taught by Madsen, instead of an opening 51, as taught by Jordan ‘069, in order use a slit with an arc shape, which permits rotation to any angle to facilitate any desired position for the spool (Madsen, para 0026).
Regarding claim 22, Jordan ‘069 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second opening is a crescent- shaped slot that includes, or defines, one or more pre-set marks.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of ensuring a balanced center of mass, Madsen teaches wherein the second opening (slit 38, fig. 1) is a crescent- shaped slot (as shown in fig. 1) that includes, or defines, one or more pre-set marks (opening 45, fig. 1; para 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Madsen, by using an arcuate slit 38, as taught by Madsen, instead of an opening 51, as taught by Jordan ‘069, in order use a slit with an arc shape, which permits rotation to any angle to facilitate any desired position for the spool (Madsen, para 0026).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (US-20160145069-A1; hereinafter Jordan ‘069) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Winkel et al. (US-20120298788-A1).
Jordan ‘069 teaches a plurality of openings (openings 51 and 53, fig. 4) positioned on the fixed portion about the hinge (openings 51 and 53 are on the plates 46 and are arranged radially relative to the opening 49, fig. 4)
Jordan ‘069 does not explicitly disclose wherein the lock comprises a detent positioned on the adjustable portion and wherein the detent is configured to engage one of the plurality of openings.
However, in the same field of endeavor of supports for spooled wire hubs, Winkel teaches wherein the lock comprises a detent (detent 218, fig. 2A) positioned on the adjustable portion (second piece 108, fig. 2A) and wherein the detent is configured to engage one of the plurality of openings (openings 216, fig. 2A; para 0032).
Winkel, fig. 2B
PNG
media_image7.png
180
382
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Jordan ‘069, in view of the teachings of Winkel, by using releasable latch 206, as taught by Winkel, instead of a pin 58, as taught by Jordan ‘069, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one locking mechanism known in the art for another with predictable results (using a detent based locking mechanism instead of a pin based locking mechanism will not change the operation of the stand and still allow the stand to hold the spool of wire).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 8 January 2026 have been fully considered.
Request for Examiner Interview
In their arguments, the Applicant requested that the examiner schedule an interview. However, the examiner did not grant the interview request because of issues that have been identified in the present Office action, which prevent expediting the allowance of the instant application (MPEP 713.01).
The Rejections under 35 USC § 102 and § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections that are based on Jordan ‘069.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Christopher et al. (US-20120152925-A1) teach adjustable angles for wire feeders.
Fenske et al. (US-20180057303-A1) teach an invention similar to Jordan ‘069.
Ott et al. (US-12343827-B2) teach an invention similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/13/2026