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
Amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims received on October 20th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 34 have been amended, claims 11-33 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 34 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.
Applicant argues that the addition of “the chamber being configured solely to store the cable freely therein without any specific arrangement of the cable” and “the length of the cable held in the chamber” to claims 1-2, 9-10, and 34 is sufficient to overcome the rejection presented by the previous office action. The examiner would first like to point out that the amendment of the claims now includes a segment and a length of the cable, wherein the length of the cable comprises the segment. It is understood that the segment of the cable is what is urged past the drive section, and the length of the cable, along with the segment, is what is stored within the chamber. While, this further clarifies which part of the cable is freely stored within the chamber, Sterner teachers a device for collecting a trailing cable with a cable pot 3, corresponding to a chamber, allowing for the cable to be freely stored as depicted in figure 1. In the instance of Sterner, trailing cable 2 corresponds to a segment and the length is represent by the cable 17 found within the chamber.
Applicant further argues that Lucas is not at all concerned with a cable retractor and is not concerned with a chamber configured to hold at least a length of a cable, and thus renders the prior art reference as non-analogous art. The examiner emphasizes it has been held that the determination that reference is from a non-analogous art is twofold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor's endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 202 USPQ 1711 174. In this case, Lucas aims to solve the issue of an inefficient retractable cable by providing idler rollers, sensors, and switches to provide smoother and automatic drawing and withdrawing of the cable material.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lucas (US 2017/0239011 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 9, Lucas discloses a cable retractor, comprising a housing (Fig. 2; Pg. 2, ¶33, collection system 110);
a motorized drive section disposed within the housing and configured to urge at least a segment of the cable past the drive section (Fig. 3; Pg. 3, ¶37, motor 360);
wherein the motorized drive section further comprises a motor driven drive roller (Fig. 3; Pg. 3, ¶42, drive roller 370), and an idler roller, and at least one of the drive roller and the idler roller pressing against another of the drive roller and the idler roller, the at least segment of the cable being disposed between the drive roller and the idler roller (Fig. 2; Pg. 4, ¶55, idle roller 380); and
a chamber disposed within the housing and configured to hold at least a length of the cable (Fig. 2; Pg. 2, ¶33, collection container 230);
whereby the motorized drive section is operable to urge the cable in a first direction to draw the at least segment of the cable from the length of the cable held in the chamber, then past the motorized drive section, and then through an external opening in the housing to outside of the housing (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, ¶57), and
the motorized drive section is operable to urge the cable in a second, opposing direction to draw the at least segment of the cable through the external opening in the housing from outside of the housing, then past the motorized drive section, and then into the chamber, (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶37), and
wherein the chamber being configured solely to store the cable freely therein without a specific arrangement of the cable, and wherein the at least segment of the cable being urged freely into the chamber without any specific arrangement in the chamber thereby adding to the length of the cable stored freely in the chamber (Pg. 5, ¶74).
Regarding claim 5, Lucas discloses further comprising at least one switch configured to at least one of activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the first direction, activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the second direction, or deactivate the motorized drive section, in response to the at least one switch being one of being activated or deactivated (Pg. 3, ¶48, toggle switch 280).
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(s) 3-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas (US 2017/0239011 A1) in view of Feldstein (US 2015/0166299 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 10, Lucas discloses a cable retractor, comprising a housing (Fig. 2; Pg. 2, ¶33, collection system 110);
a motorized drive section disposed within the housing and configured to urge at least a segment of the cable past the drive section (Fig. 3; Pg. 3, ¶37, motor 360) ;
wherein the motorized drive section further comprises a motor driven drive roller (Fig. 3; Pg. 3, ¶42, drive roller 370), and an idler roller, and at least one of the drive roller and the idler roller pressing against another of the drive roller and the idler roller, the at least segment of the cable being disposed between the drive roller and the idler roller (Fig. 2; Pg. 4, ¶55, idle roller 380); and
a chamber disposed within the housing and configured to hold at least a length of the cable (Fig. 2; Pg. 2, ¶33, collection container 230);
whereby the motorized drive section is operable to urge the cable in a first direction to draw the at least segment of the cable from the length of the cable held in the chamber, then past the motorized drive section, and then through an external opening in the housing to outside of the housing (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, ¶57), and
the motorized drive section is operable to urge the cable in a second, opposing direction to draw the at least segment of the cable through the external opening in the housing from outside of the housing, then past the motorized drive section, and then into the chamber, (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶37), and
wherein the chamber being configured solely to store the cable freely therein without a specific arrangement of the cable, and wherein the at least segment of the cable being urged freely into the chamber without any specific arrangement in the chamber thereby adding to the length of the cable stored freely in the chamber (Pg. 5, ¶74);
a circuit element configured to at least one of activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the first direction, activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the second direction, or deactivate the motorized drive section, in response to the sensor detecting the at least one of a presence of, an absence of, a movement of, or a lack of movement of the region of the cable (Pg. 4, ¶¶49-52, control system 350); and
at least one switch configured to at least one of activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the first direction, activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the second direction, or deactivate the motorized drive section, in response to the at least one switch being one of being activated or deactivated (Pg. 3, ¶48, toggle switch 280), but fails to disclose a sensor. However, Feldstein teaches further comprising a sensor configured to detect at least one of a presence of, an absence of, a movement of, or a lack of movement of a region of the cable (Pg. 4-5, ¶163, sensor 116). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a sensor to the cable retractor to provide means for accurate and timely retraction based off of cable presence.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas (US 2017/0239011 A1) in view of Pedoeem (US 10,549,946 B2).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 34, Lucas discloses a cable retractor, comprising a housing (Fig. 2; Pg. 2, ¶33, collection system 110);
a motorized drive section disposed within the housing and configured to urge at least a segment of the cable past the drive section (Fig. 3; Pg. 3, ¶37, motor 360);
wherein the motorized drive section further comprises a motor driven drive roller (Fig. 3; Pg. 3, ¶42, drive roller 370), and an idler roller, and at least one of the drive roller and the idler roller pressing against another of the drive roller and the idler roller, the at least segment of the cable being disposed between the drive roller and the idler roller (Fig. 2; Pg. 4, ¶55, idle roller 380); and
a chamber disposed within the housing and configured to hold at least a length of the cable (Fig. 2; Pg. 2, ¶33, collection container 230);
whereby the motorized drive section is operable to urge the cable in a first direction to draw the at least segment of the cable from the length of the cable held in the chamber, then past the motorized drive section, and then through an external opening in the housing to outside of the housing (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, ¶57), and
the motorized drive section is operable to urge the cable in a second, opposing direction to draw the at least segment of the cable through the external opening in the housing from outside of the housing, then past the motorized drive section, and then into the chamber, (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶37), and
wherein the chamber being configured solely to store the cable freely therein without a specific arrangement of the cable, and wherein the at least segment of the cable being urged freely into the chamber without any specific arrangement in the chamber thereby adding to the length of the cable stored freely in the chamber (Pg. 5, ¶74);
a circuit element configured to at least one of activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the first direction, activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the second direction, or deactivate the motorized drive section, in response to the sensor detecting the at least one of a presence of, an absence of, a movement of, or a lack of movement of the region of the cable (Pg. 4, ¶¶49-52, control system 350); and
at least one switch configured to at least one of activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the first direction, activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the second direction, or deactivate the motorized drive section, in response to the at least one switch being one of being activated or deactivated (Pg. 3, ¶48, toggle switch 280).
Lucas fails to disclose a module for a flip top box. However, Pedoeem teaches further comprising a module external to the housing and configured to be inserted into a flip top box, the module having an opening through which the cable passes (Col. 10, Ln. 8-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a module for a flip top box to provide a seamless cable retractor assembly.
Lucas also fails to disclose the module with a sensor. However, Pedoeem teaches wherein the module further comprises a sensor disposed within the module and configured to detect at least one of a presence of, an absence of, a movement of, or a lack of movement of a region of the cable; and a circuit element disposed within the module and configured to at least one of activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the first direction, activate the motorized drive section to urge the cable in the second direction, or deactivate the motorized drive section, in response to the sensor detecting the at least one of a presence of, an absence of, a movement of, or a lack of movement of the region of the cable (Col. 8, Ln. 59-67 & Col. 9, Ln. 1-22, sensor 802). Therefore. it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a sensor and circuit element to the module to provide a more efficient retraction of the cable.
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 ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Anna M. Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights