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 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) 1-4, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay (US 6976744) in view of Dickey (US 20150108832) and Byrne (US 10897149); and as evidenced by NPL (Custom designed cables; first footnote for claim 1) and as evidenced by NPL (Amazon Tripp Lite ; Second footnote for claim 3).
Regarding claim 1, Hay discloses, A tool storage unit (Fig. 1) , comprising: a compartment (20) movable between open and closed positions (Col. 2; line 54-56; Fig. 1, 7).
However, Hay does not disclose, a power strip coupled to and movable with the compartment, wherein the power strip is accessible via the compartment when the compartment is in the open position; and a power cable extending from the power strip and adapted to couple to a power source.
Dickey is in the field of endeavor and discloses, a power strip (48; Fig. 4) coupled to an interior wall of the compartment (Fig. 7) and accessible via the compartment when the compartment is in the open position; a power cable (Fig. 4) extending from the power strip and adapted to couple to a power source (46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hay to incorporate a power strip coupled to and movable with the compartment, wherein the power strip is accessible via the compartment when the compartment is in the open position; and a power cable extending from the power strip and adapted to couple to a power source as taught by Dickey for the purpose of providing power outlet within moving enclosure (abstract).
While the limitation “wherein the power cable includes a coiled portion” is not disclosed by Hay as modified, Dickey discloses, “the flexible conduit is a flexible cable chain, but it will be understood that other structures may be utilized including spring-loaded cable reels, or other functionally similar structures.” para 83. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Byrne represents evidence that coiled wire is a known equivalence for spring-loaded cable reels (Col. 3; line 57-63). Therefore, because these two retractable were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute spring loaded cable for coiled wire. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II)
With regards to the limitation “coiled portion which is adapted to allow the power cable to elastically uncoil when the compartment is moved to the open position, and automatically recoil the power cable when the compartment is moved to the closed position.” Coiled cables are known to be coil and uncoil in response to force. 1 Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the coiled portion would uncoil when the drawer is pulled to an open position and coil when the drawer is pushed to a closed position . Additionally, it is noted that, it is well known to have power outlet with coiled cable2.
Regarding claim 2, Hay as modified discloses, the coiled portion includes an elastic material adapted to recoil the power cable to a rest position when the compartment is moved to the closed position (coiled cables are made so that that they stay coiled in resting position and uncoil when pulled; since the cables (instant application and prior art) function the same way it inherently would have elastic material that allows for the change in length).
Regarding claim 3, Hay as modified discloses the coiled portion includes a spring wrapped about an exterior of the coiled portion, wherein the spring is adapted to recoil the power cable to a rest position when the compartment is moved to the closed position (Coiled portions are known to being spring wrapped.)2
Regarding claim 4, Hay as modified discloses the coiled portion comprises a wrapping adapted to recoil the power cable to a rest shape when the compartment is moved to the closed position (when the drawer is closed, the coil would recoil to resting shape) .
Regarding claim 8, Hay as modified discloses, the power strip includes at least one power outlet (Dickey ;76).
Regarding claim 9, Hay discloses, the compartment includes a lock adapted to lock the compartment in the closed position (Col. 2; line 64-65).
Regarding claim 10, Hay as modified discloses, the power strip includes a 110-120 V or 220-240 V AC power outlet (Dickey; Para 69).
While Hay as modified does not explicitly disclose, the power strip includes a 12 V power outlet. Dickey discloses the incorporation of 120V/10 A maximum current, or alternatively 220V or 440V. Dickey further discloses, “It will be understood that any voltages and frequencies may be used”. This is considered as a matter of design choice. The type of outlet is determined based on the demand. Incorporating a 12 v outlet instead of 120 V is a matter that falls within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ray to incorporate a 12 v outlet for the purpose of allowing the end user to use such outlet for applicable equipment.
Claim(s) 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay-Dickey-Byrne as applied to claim 1 in view of Smith (20080169251).
Regarding claim 5, Hay as modified does not disclose , a telescoping support with an end coupled to the interior surface of the wall of the tool storage unit, wherein the telescoping support includes a segmented portion and is adapted to allow the power cable to extend when the compartment is moved to the open position, and retract the power cable when the compartment is moved to the closed position.
Smith is relevant to this issue and discloses a storage unit (100) comprising a telescoping support (para 11,31; elements 335 and 340) with an end coupled to the interior surface of the wall of the storage unit (Fig. 9) wherein the telescoping support includes a segmented portion for allowing the cable to pass through.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hay to incorporate a telescoping support with an end coupled to the interior surface of the wall of the tool storage unit, wherein the telescoping support includes a segmented portion for allowing the cable to pass through as taught by Smith for the purpose of keeping the cable aligned and also to prevent any dangling of the cables while also providing structural support to the drawer.
Additionally , it is noted that it is well known to utilize telescopic tubes for housing cables in drawers. Jackson (US 20070274042) discloses the use of telescopic tube (215) to house wire (232).
Regarding claim 7, Hay as modified discloses, the power cable is disposed in an interior of the telescoping support (Smith fig. 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay-Dickey-Byrne as applied to claim 1 in view of Shi (CN 206922196; Provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 6, While Hay as modified does not explicitly disclose, the power cable is disposed around an exterior of the telescoping support
Shi is in the field of endeavor and discloses a wire that is wrapped around a pole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hay to wrap the coil cable around the pole as taught by Shi for the purpose of allowing for easy visual inspection if the cable gets damaged while preventing any dangling of the cable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, applicant argues that Byrne merely discloses the wires for storing and does not disclose “a power cable that includes a coiled portion”, to that the examiner respectfully disagrees. Wires such as Spring loaded, and coiled/curly wires allow for smaller area to store long length of wire. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
The applicant further argues that the office action recognizes Hay, Dickey and Byrne fail to disclose “ claimed power cable that includes a coiled portion that is adapted to allow the power cable to elastically uncoil when the compartment is moved to the open position and automatically recoin the power cable when the compartment is moved to the closed position.” to that the examiner replies that, The office action does not acknowledge that the combined references fail to disclose this limitation but rather once modified, the coiled wire would perform the same as the instant application. Custom design cable and Amazon Tripp Lite are simply provided as evidence that this type of cables behave as claimed and no structure was incorporated from these references.
The applicant agrees that substituting an alternative structure for the conduit of Dickey would not necessarily render Dickey unsatisfactory. The applicant argues that Byrne discloses the cable to the be loose and incorporating such cable would be contrary to MPEP. The examiner replies that Byrne was utilized to shows that coiled cable and spring loaded cable are equivalent. Byrne simply recites “Power cord 22 may be coiled or bundled loosely in lower storage chamber 30, or a winding reel or retractor may be provided for storing the power cord when it is not in use.”. Byrne does not recite the coiled cable is loose but rather for cord 22 to be bundled loosely.
The applicant further argues that the rejection of claims 2-4 does not identify any section but makes general statement to that the examiner replies that, the prior arts as modified has all the structures as claimed and therefore is expected to perform the same as the instant application. Evidence 1 and 2 shows that it is known for coiled cables to coil in rest and uncoil when pulled/force is applied. This is because the cable itself acts as a spring that allows for it to expand and retract. As for claim 3, the prior art of Tripp lite shows curly/coiled portion just as the instant application that acts just like a spring when pulled or when at rest.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Byrne (US 10381808) discloses a corded power strip that adjusts in length in response to force.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
1 https://www.customdesignedcable.co.uk/news/purpose-coiled-cables/
2 https://www.amazon.com/Tripp-Lite-Medical-Grade-Hospital-Grade-PS-410-HGOEMCC/dp/B0050JSD1Y/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8&th=1 discloses the use of coiled cord for using in drawers.