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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conveyor in claim 12 and the conveyor arranged perpendicular to the accumulator system in claim 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 2-9, 12-15, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art, Fig. 2, hereafter AAPA, in view of Nishide et al. (JP2000-109269), hereinafter Nishide, Walker (6,481,665), and evidenced of Buckwitz et al. (5,063,974), hereinafter Buckwitz.
Regarding claim 12, AAPA teaches a manufacturing system for making a fiber optic cable substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising:
a single unwinder 28 for holding a supply of fiber optic cable;
at least one winder 30 for forming a plurality of coils from the supply of fiber optic cable associated with the unwinder; and
a plurality of accumulators disposed between the unwinder and the at least one winder, each of the plurality of accumulators comprising:
a frame;
a first pulley array mounted to the frame and including a first frame member and a first plurality of pulleys rotatably mounted to the first frame member along a first distribution axis, each of the first plurality of pulleys defining a first rotational axis; and
a second pulley array mounted to the frame and including a second frame member and a second plurality of pulleys rotatably mounted to the second frame member along a second distribution axis, each of the second plurality of pulleys defining a second rotational axis,
wherein the first pulley array and the second pulley array are movable relative to each other so as to be positionable on opposite sides of each other, and
a conveyor positioned adjacent the plurality of accumulators, the conveyor configured to guide movement of the unwinder along the conveyor such that the unwinder is positionable adjacent to each of the plurality of accumulators,
wherein the unwinder is configured to operatively couple to each of the plurality of accumulators in the manufacturing system during operation.
See Fig. 2.
A-Regarding the limitations “a single unwinder” and “a plurality of accumulators”.
AAPA does not teach a plurality of accumulators.
Nishide teaches an accumulator for tensioning a cable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the accumulator as taught by Nishide in the manufacturing system of AAPA for tensioning a cable for cutting.
As to the term “a plurality of accumulators”, claim 12 sets for a manufacturing system having a plurality of accumulators. The term “manufacturing system” reads on a floor layout of a manufacturing facility. It is known that in a manufacturing facility there are a series of system in Fig. 2 of AAPA arranged side by side for producing more products. Each system has a modified accumulator. Therefore, there are a plurality of accumulators. For example, Buckwitz teaches a manufacturing system having a plurality of individual sub-machines (52, 60).
As to the term “a single unwinder”, the unwinder is for holding the stock wire and is removable from the system when empty. In the system of the plurality of accumulators, a single unwinder could be on the manufacturing floor and all the rest of the other unwinders are removed from the manufacturing floor due to the emptiness of the stock wire on the unwinder or no demand to run all the unwinders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have a single unwinder on the manufacturing floor of AAPA due to the emptiness of the stock wire on the unwinder or no demand to run all the unwinder.
B- AAPA does not teach the detail of the claimed accumulator.
Nishide teaches an accumulator for making fiber optic cables, comprising:
a frame;
a first pulley array 28 mounted to the frame and including a first frame member and a first plurality of pulleys 24 rotatably mounted to the first frame member along a first distribution axis, each of the first plurality of pulleys defining a first rotational axis; and
a second pulley array 30 mounted to the frame and including a second frame member and a second plurality of pulleys 22 rotatably mounted to the second frame member along a second distribution axis, each of the second plurality of pulleys defining a second rotational axis,
wherein the first pulley array and the second pulley array are movable relative to each other so as to be positionable on opposite sides of each other.
See Figs. 1-2.
Nishide teaches the accumulator for tensioning a cable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the accumulator as taught by Nishide in the manufacturing system of AAPA for tensioning a cable for cutting.
C-AAPA does not teach a conveyor for guiding movement of the unwinder to the accumulators.
Walker teaches a conveyor (16, 18, 20) positioned adjacent a workstation, the conveyor configured to guide movement of stock material along the conveyor such that the stock material is positionable adjacent to the workstation. See Figs.1-2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the modified manufacturing system of AAPA a conveyor as taught by Walker to carry a stock unwinder to a desire accumulator from a storage area.
Regarding claim 2, the arrangement of the pulleys on their respected support frames is best seen in Figs. 1-2 in Nishide.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the pulleys arranged on the same plane are best seen in Fig. 8 in Nishide.
Regarding claim 5, the pulleys arranged on a horizontal direction are best seen in Fig. 1 in Nishide.
Regarding claims 6-9, one of the pulley arrays or both can be movable in a vertical direction by motors (50 or 60) in Nishide.
Regarding claim 13, a cutter 34 is best seen in Fig. 2 in AAPA. To place the cutting upstream or downstream of the accumulator is within the knowledge of one skilled in in the art.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, to provide a desire number of winders and unwinders to the system is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. AAPA teaches a winder and an unwinders used with an accumulator.
Regarding claim 25, the conveyor arranged in a second direction perpendicular to a first machine direction is best seen in Fig. 1 in Walker.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art, Fig. 2, hereafter AAPA, in view of Nishide et al. (JP2000-109269), hereinafter Nishide, Walker (6,481,665), and evidenced of Buckwitz et al. (5,063,974), hereinafter Buckwitz, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Beckmann et al. (4,308,945), hereinafter Beckmann.
Regarding claim 10, the modified manufacturing system in AAPA teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the first pulley array and the second pulley array being movable relative to each other through rotation.
Beckmann teaches a conveying system comprising a first pulley array 18 and a second pulley array (support element for rollers 15, 16) being movable relative to each other through rotation. See Fig. 1.
Linear adjustment of the first pulley array and the second pulley array as taught by Nishide and angular adjustment of the first pulley array and the second pulley array as taught by Beckmann are art equivalents known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the first pulley array and the second pulley array in Nishide angularly adjustable as taught by Beckmann since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Regarding claim 11, a pivot axis is parallel to the rotational axes of the pulleys. See Fig. 1 in Beckmann.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed one 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claimed conveyor is basically as transfer system for moving stock material, unwinders, from a storage to a desire processing station or from one processing station to another processing station. Walker is introduced to teach a conveyor for bringing a stock material to a desire processing station. Therefore, the combination of AAPA, Nishide, Buckwitz, and Walker reads on the claimed language.
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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 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 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724