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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claim terms “floating” and “float” are currently of issue, and are discussed here. Notably, Applicant provides no lexicographic definition of these terms in the specification, so the claims are given their customary definition. Definitions involving buoyancy in a fluid do not seem appropriate, so the Office uses the definition “to move or drift about. To float from place to place” (Dictionary.com, eighth definition). This seems most consistent with usage in the original disclosure.
It is noted that the claim term “floating support device” invokes 35 USC 112(f). As this section was discussed at length in the Office Action of 11/12/24, it is not discussed in depth again. In short, “support device” is a nonce term with no particular structural definition, and is modified only functionally (i.e. “floating” and “adapted to float”). Furthermore, there is no structural modifier sufficient to perform the floating function. In the original disclosure element 520 represents the “floating support device,” and comprises fixed (521) and movable (522) supports along with a force imparting member (523). The claim is limited to this structure, or equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 21 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 21 (line 6) recites “the plurality of fingers,” which lacks antecedent basis.
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 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 1-3, 7, 10, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,063,974 (hereinafter “Buckwitz”).
Regarding claim 1 Buckwitz discloses a cable processing system, comprising:
a cable supply unit (58) adapted to supply a cable;
a cable coiling unit (60) adapted to coil the supplied cable into a cable coil (e.g. 402);
a cable coil binding unit (61/62) adapted to bundle the cable coil (402);
a cable coil loading unit (400) adapted to load the bundled cable coil (402) and comprising a cable clamp (410) for clamping a cable end of the loaded cable coil (see fig. 31) and a first floating support device (334; which appears to be an equivalent of applicants first floating support device; see col. 15, first full paragraph) adapted to float (i.e. or drift) in a vertical direction (see dashed lines in figure 29); and
a cable coil conveying unit (66) adapted to convey the bundled cable coil (402) to the cable coil loading unit (400) (see column 15 lines 8-20).
Regarding claim 2 Buckwitz discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein the cable coiling unit (60; e.g. fig. 22) comprises a coiling device (242) including a rotating disc (257), and a plurality of fingers (270) mounted on the rotating disc (257) to rotate with the rotating disc (257), the plurality of fingers (270) being evenly spaced around the circumferential direction of the rotating disc (257) and adapted to coil the cable thereon (see fig. 22).
Regarding claim 3 Buckwitz discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein the cable coiling unit (60) further comprises a clamping device (275) adapted to clamp the cable end (fig. 22), the clamping device (275) including a rotating frame (274), and a gripper (i.e. end of 274 which engages with wire) installed on the rotating frame (274) to rotate with the rotating frame (274), when the cable coiling unit (60) coils the cable, the gripper (274) clamps the cable end, the rotation axis of the rotating disc (257) coincides with (is parallel with) the rotation axis of the rotating frame (274), and the rotating disc (257) rotates synchronously with the rotating frame (i.e. 274 is on the disk) at the same rotation speed in the same rotation direction.
Regarding claim 7 Buckwitz discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein the cable coiling unit (60) further comprises a cutting device (90) adapted to cut off the supplied cable including a cutting tool (154), and a first driving mechanism (164) driving the cutting tool (154) to open and close.
Regarding claim 10 Buckwitz discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein the cable supply unit (58) comprises:
a cable driving mechanism (196/198) for driving the cable to move towards the cable coiling unit (60);
a cable straightening mechanism (140; i.e. straightening by clamping) arranged upstream of the cable driving mechanism (196/198) for straightening the cable; and
a length detecting device (i.e. the system measures a predetermined amount of cable; see column 6 lines 15-16) arranged downstream of the cable driving mechanism (196; i.e. 60 is downstream of 196) for detecting the length of the cable transmitted from the cable driving mechanism.
Regarding claim 19 Buckwitz discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein the cable coil conveying unit (66) comprises two conveying devices (see fig. 2), each conveying device (66; see figures 25-29) comprising:
a fixed support frame (300);
a first movable support frame (331; fig. 27A) movably mounted (at least indirectly) on the fixed support frame (300) to move in a vertical direction;
a second movable support frame (368) movably mounted on the first movable support frame (331) to move in a horizontal direction; and
a cable clamping device (304) installed on the second movable support frame (368) for clamping the cable end of the cable coil.
Regarding claim 20 Buckwitz discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein the conveying device further comprises:
a first driving unit (323/325) mounted (indirectly) on the fixed support frame (300) and driving the first movable support frame (331) to move in the vertical direction; and
a second driving unit (364) mounted on the first movable support frame (331) and driving the second movable support frame (368) to move in the horizontal direction.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0271510 (hereinafter "Estermann").
Regarding claim 21 Estermann discloses a cable processing system, comprising:
a cable supply unit (11) adapted to supply a cable (13);
a cable coiling unit (17) adapted to coil the supplied cable (13) into a cable coil (2), the cable coiling unit (17) comprises (is) a coiling device, the coiling device (17) includes a rotating disc (32), a fixed frame (47), and a movable frame (see fig. 6) movably mounted on the fixed frame (47; paragraph 36), the rotating disc (32) is rotatably mounted on the movable frame (fig. 6), [a] plurality of fingers (34) are movably mounted on the rotating disc (32) to move synchronously along a radial direction of the rotating disc (32), so that the diameter of the coiled cable coil is capable of being adjusted (i.e. at least a little);
a cable coil binding unit (26) adapted to bundle the cable coil (2);
a cable coil loading unit (31) adapted to load the bundled cable coil (2); and
a cable coil conveying unit (23) adapted to convey the bundled cable coil (2) to the cable coil loading unit (31).
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, 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckwitz.
Regarding claim 8 Buckwitz discloses the above system, and further discloses wherein the cutting device (90) further comprises:
a fixed plate (see fig. 14);
a movable plate (167) movably mounted on the fixed plate (at 172) to move in a vertical direction; and
a second driving mechanism (170) mounted on the fixed plate (see fig. 14) for driving the movable plate (167) to move in the vertical direction, wherein the cutting tool (154) is installed on the movable plate (167) to move with the movable plate (167).
Buckwitz fails to disclose wherein the motion of the movable plate is parallel to the rotation axis of the rotating disc. This appears to represent mere rearrangement of parts to accomplish the same task in the same way. 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 axis of the spindle in any convenient direction, including vertical, in order to allow the wire to better coil.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckwitz in view of Estermann.
Regarding claim 11 Buckwitz teaches the above system fails to teach the tape supply device or tape winding device as set forth in claim 11 (i.e. Buckwitz uses tying, not tape).
Estermann teaches a similar cable processing system with a binding unit (26). Estermann further teaches wherein the cable coil binding unit (26) comprises:
a tape supply device (71) for supplying adhesive tape (61); and
a tape winding device (27; see figs. 13-14) for winding the supplied adhesive tape (61) on the coiled cable coil (2) to ensure that the cable coil (2) will not be loosened.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to switch the tape-style binding unit for the bundling unit of Estermann with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to make it easier for the consumer to unbind the coils of wire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 9) that all the limitations of claim 12 were added to new claim 22. This is incorrect. Claim 22 does not require a cable clamp. Nonetheless, claim 22 has been found allowable.
Applicant argues (pages 9-10) that claim 1 “has been amended with a portion of allowable original claim 15.” This is not persuasive. Original claim 15 had more limitations than present claim 1. As outlined above, current claim 1 does not overcome the prior art. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (page 10) that claim 21 “has been amended with a portion of allowable original claim 4.” This is not persuasive. Original claim 4 had more limitations than present claim 21. As outlined above, current claim 21 does not overcome the prior art, and is rejected under Estermann.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is allowed.
Claims 4-6, 9, and 12-18 are 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
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 Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/N.L.A/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights