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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 9th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 3-4 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 5-19, and 21 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-2 and 21 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the disclosure and claims have overcome the objections to the disclosure and claims and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 9th, 2025.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, due to the amendment of claim 21 filed December 9th, 2025 which changed its claim dependency from claim 1 to currently withdrawn claim 18, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of the invention in Group I (Claims 1-14) was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 11th, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakare (US 9,695,008, disclosure initially published in US 2016/0251196 on September 1, 2016), hereinafter Thakare ‘008, in view of Moore (US 4,117,988).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 4B from Thakare '008
Regarding Claim 1, Thakare ‘008, Figures 1-8 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a cable reel 100, comprising:
first and second opposing flanges 106, 108, the first flange 106 having a first hub portion 150 and the second flange 108 having a second hub portion 152, the first and second hub portions 150, 152 configured to be axially aligned and configured to mate with one another to support cable (See Thakare ‘008, Abstract, Ln. 1-5); and
a coupling mechanism 170’ configured to couple the first hub portion 150 to the second hub portion 152, wherein the first hub portion 150 is rotationally fixed to the second hub portion 152 (See Thakare ‘008, Col. 3, Ln. 37-40),
wherein the coupling mechanism 170’ includes a plurality of flexible segments 164 configured to apply a friction force between the first hub portion 150 and the second hub portion 152 to limit rotational movement of the first hub portion 150 relative to the second hub portion 152 (See Thakare ‘008, Col. 4, Ln. 8-15).
Thakare ‘008 teaches all the elements of the cable reel except for the coupling mechanism being axially adjustable, including a threaded connection, and being configured to couple the first hub portion to the second hub portion at a plurality of stable axial positions.
PNG
media_image2.png
548
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 3 from Moore
However, Moore, Figures 1-4 annotated Figure 2 above, teaches wherein an axially adjustable coupling mechanism 10 configured to couple the first hub portion 22’ to the second hub portion 42 at a plurality of stable axial positions (See Moore, Col. 5, Ln. 3-7), wherein the first hub portion 22’ is rotationally fixed to the second hub portion 42 at the plurality of axial positions (See Moore, Col. 3, Ln. 66 - Col. 4, Ln. 4),
wherein the axially adjustable coupling mechanism 10 includes a threaded connection 30’ and a plurality of flexible segments (“longitudinally extending segments”; See Moore, Col. 3, Ln. 54) configured to apply a friction force between the first hub portion 22’ and the second hub portion 42 to limit rotational movement of the first hub portion 22’ relative to the second hub portion 42 (See Moore, Col. 4, Ln. 52-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Thakare ‘008 with an axially adjustable coupling mechanism including a threaded connection, as taught by Moore, for the purpose of rotationally fixing components (i.e. increasing frictional engagement between components) (See Moore, Col. 4, Ln. 51-61).
Regarding Claim 2, Thakare ‘008 in view of Moore are advanced above.
Thakare ‘008 further teaches the first hub portion 150 including an elongated wall 154 extending from the first flange 106, the elongated wall 154 being sized to support cable, the elongated wall 154 defining an inner area 156 configured to accept the second hub portion 152, and the elongated wall 154 including the plurality of flexible segments 164 (See Thakare ‘008, Col. 3, Ln. 54-56); and
the second hub portion 152 including a truncated wall 180 receivable in the inner area 156 of the first hub portion 150, said truncated wall 180 including a tapered outer surface 182 for engaging and expanding the plurality of flexible segments 164 to apply the friction force to the tapered outer surface 182 (See Thakare ‘008, Col. 4, Ln. 8-15).
Regarding Claim 11, Thakare ‘008 in view of Moore are advanced above.
Thakare ‘008 further teaches wherein the first hub portion 150 is longer than the second hub portion 152 in the axial direction (See Thakare ‘008, Col. 1, Ln. 58-59).
Regarding Claim 12, Thakare ‘008 in view of Moore are advanced above.
Thakare ‘008 further teaches first and second support frames 102, 104 rotatably coupled to the first hub portion 150 and second hub portion 152, respectively (See Thakare ‘008, Col. 2, Ln. 54-57).
Regarding Claim 13, Thakare ‘008 in view of Moore are advanced above.
Thakare ‘008 further teaches wherein each of the first and second flanges 106, 108 is substantially disc shaped (See Thakare ‘008, Col. 3, Ln. 23-24).
Regarding Claim 14, Thakare ‘008 in view of Moore are advanced above.
Thakare ‘008 further teaches a braking mechanism configured to limit rotation of at least one of the first flange 106 and second flange 108 relative to the first support frame 102 (See Thakare ‘008, Col. 3, Ln. 23-24).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakare ‘008 (US 9,695,008) in view of Moore (US 4,117,988) as applied to claims 1-2 and 11-14 above, and further in view of Davis (US 6,676,069) and Wahl (US 3,295,784).
Regarding Claim 6, Thakare ‘008 in view of Moore are advanced above.
Thakare ‘008 in view of Moore teach all the elements of the cable reel except for a plurality of recesses and at least one radially biased flexible arm configured to engage with at least one recess.
PNG
media_image3.png
473
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 5 from Davis
However, Davis, annotated Figure 3 above, teaches at least one radially-biased flexible arm 29 configured to engage with at least one opening 32 of a plurality of openings 32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thakare ‘008, Moore, and Davis to provide a radially-biased flexible arm configured to engage with at least one opening of a plurality of openings, as taught by Davis, for the purpose of increasing the reels adaptability to support various lengths of wire (i.e. by varying the distance between flanges) (See Davis, Col. 2, Ln. 10-12).
Thakare ‘008 in view of Moore and Davis teach all the elements of the cable reel except the corresponding engagement for the flexible arms being a partial recess instead of a full opening.
PNG
media_image4.png
412
615
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 1 from Wahl
However, Wahl, Figures 1-3 and annotated Figure 4 above, teaches wherein the axially adjustable coupling mechanism 1 includes a plurality of recesses 35, wherein at least two of the recesses 35 of the plurality of recesses 35 are located at different axial positions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thakare ‘008, Moore, Davis, and Wahl to provide a plurality of recesses, as taught by Wahl, for the purpose of fine tuning the axial adjustment between the hubs and holding the hubs in axial position (See Wahl, Col. 2, Ln. 28-32).
Regarding Claim 7, Thakare ‘008 in view of Moore, Davis, and Wahl are advanced above.
Wahl further teaches wherein the at least one recess 35 is a circumferential recess around one of the first hub portion 2 (See Figure 4 above; See Wahl, Col. 2, Ln. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thakare ‘008, Moore, Davis, and Wahl to provide a circumferential recess, as taught by Wahl, for the purpose of fine tuning the axial adjustment between the hubs and holding the hubs in axial position (See Wahl, Col. 2, Ln. 28-32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 7-11, filed December 9th, 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to the Drawings, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the Claims, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the amended claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Thakare ‘008 in view of Moore are utilized in the current rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Regarding the rejections of Claims 2, 6-7, and 11-14, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 1 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, these claims are also rejected based on the new ground of rejection presented above.
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 TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is 571-272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7:30pm ET.
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 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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619