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 Objections
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, 12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In claim 1, line 7-8, the limitation “an upper surface, and a lower surface” should read -- an upper surface and a lower surface --.
In claim 1, line 10, the limitation “said upper surface of said post holder” should read -- said post holder upper surface of said post holder --.
In claim 1, line 14, the limitation “said upper surface accommodates, and securely holds” should read -- said upper surface of said base accommodates and securely holds --.
In claim 1, line 16, the limitation “removeably and securely” should read -- removably and securely --.
In claim 5, line 1, the limitation “wherein material” should read -- wherein a material --.
In claim 9, line 3, the limitation “a passage of at least one cable/wire” should read -- a passage of said cable/wire --.
In claim 10, line 2, the limitation “securely hold one of a cover” should read -- securely hold a cover --.
In claim 12, line 6-7, the limitation “an upper surface, and a lower surface” should read -- an upper surface and a lower surface --.
In claim 12, line 10, the limitation “onto said post” should read -- onto said mounting post --.
In claim 12, line 14, the limitation “at least one lip extension is securely and removeably” should read -- at least one lip extension that is securely and removably --.
In claim 12, line 15-16, the limitation “said at least one lip extension” should read -- at least one lip extension of the installation bucket --.
In claim 17, line 6-7, the limitation “an upper surface, and a lower surface” should read -- an upper surface and a lower surface --.
In claim 17, line 10, the limitation “onto said post” should read -- onto said mounting post --.
In claim 17, line 14, the limitation “at least one lip extension is securely and removeably” should read -- at least one lip extension that is securely and removably --.
In claim 17, line 15-16, the limitation “said at least one lip extension” should read -- at least one lip extension of the installation bucket --.
In claim 17, line 19, the limitation “moveable secured” should read -- moveably secured --.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vogeler (U.S. Patent 10,618,770 B1).
In regards to claim 1, Vogeler teach (Figures 1-6) a cable/wire installation apparatus (apparatus 10) comprising: a center shaft (tubular member 40) that includes a bucket extension (sleeve/collar 36) at one end, and a spool extension (outer bearing 62 and inner bearing 66) at an opposite end; wherein a free end of the bucket extension (sleeve/collar 36) has a lip extension (support member 28) that points towards earth (as clearly illustrated in figures 4-6), while a free end of the spool extension (outer bearing 62 and inner bearing 66) has a post holder (inner bearing 66) with a central through hole (axially extending hole of the inner bearing 66, which receives the shaft 70) and a post holder upper surface (inner end surface of the inner bearing 66, which contacts the plate 80); a mounting post (shaft 70 with the locking collar 84 and the set screw 85) that includes a shaft (shaft 70) configured to freely rotate about the central through hole of the post holder (axially extending hole of the inner bearing 66), and a post stop (plate 80) having an upper surface (inner end surface of the plate 80, which contains the pin/stud 82 and contacts the plate 108) and a lower surface (outer end surface of the plate 80, which contacts the inner bearing 66); wherein one end of the shaft (inner end 72 of the shaft 70) is inserted into the central through hole of the post holder (axially extending hole of the inner bearing 66), while the lower surface of the post stop (outer end surface of the plate 80) rests on the post holder upper surface of the post holder (inner end surface of the inner bearing 66); and a cable/wire tray (plate 108 and hollow hub 112 of the wire reel 106) that includes a base (plate 108 of the wire reel 106) having an upper surface (inner end surface of the plate 108, which contacts/faces the wound electric fence wire 114) for accommodating and securely holding a cable/wire (electric fence wire 114), a lower surface (outer end surface of the plate 108, which contacts the plate 80), a through hole (opening 116 of the plate 108), and at least one first spool side wall (hollow hub 112 of the wire reel 106) on the upper surface of the base (inner end surface of the plate 108) for engaging and wrapping the cable/wire (electric fence wire 114) around it; wherein the base (plate 108) is removably and securely mounted onto the shaft (shaft 70) using the through hole in the base (opening 116 of the plate 108), such that the base (plate 108) rests on the upper surface of the post stop (inner end surface of the plate 80) (see also Col. 3, line 31 - Col. 5, line 3).
In regards to claims 4, 7-8, and 10-11, Vogeler teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Vogeler further teach (Figures 1-6), a tray cover (plate 110 of the wire reel 106) having a central opening (opening 116 of the plate 110, as described in Col. 4, line 38-39) that is inserted into top of the mounting post (shaft 70 with the locking collar 84 and the set screw 85), such that a portion of said tray cover (plate 110 of the wire reel 106) substantially covers the cable/wire tray (plate 108 and hollow hub 112 of the wire reel 106); the cable/wire tray (plate 108 and hollow hub 112 of the wire reel 106) having at least one inner sidewall (inner circumferential surface of the opening 116) and at least one outer sidewall (outer circumferential surface of the plate 108); the mounting post (shaft 70 with the locking collar 84 and the set screw 85) including at least one securing means (locking collar 84 and the set screw 85) at one end to securely hold the tray cover (plate 110 of the wire reel 106); and at least one support bracket (plate 60) securely supporting (via the bolts 64/68) the spool extension (outer bearing 62 and inner bearing 66).
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 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogeler.
In regards to claims 2-3 and 5, Vogeler teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Yet, Vogeler fail to explicitly disclose, specific material forming the cable/wire tray (plate 108 and hollow hub 112 of the wire reel 106), the mounting post (shaft 70 with the locking collar 84 and the set screw 85), and the tray cover (plate 110 of the wire reel 106).
However, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the cable/wire tray, the mounting post, and the tray cover in Vogeler’s cable/wire installation apparatus, from any preferable material (to include plastic, metal, iron, copper, aluminum, brass, stainless steel, or composite material) based on desired/required structural and performance characteristics and/or constraints for said components/parts. Commonly available and low-cost metal material, such as iron, copper, aluminum, brass, and stainless steel, are extensively employed in the art to manufacture components of cable/wire installation apparatuses (e.g. cable/wire trays, mounting posts, and the tray covers), due to their inherent high-strength properties/structural rigidity, ability to withstand large amount of stress forces, resistance to deterioration overtime, and long lifespan; while other commonly available and low-cost non-metal material, such as plastic and composite material, are widely used in the art manufacture components of cable/wire installation apparatuses (e.g. cable/wire trays, mounting posts, and the tray covers), due to their ideal light weight characteristics, for being electrically nonconductive, and favorable production/handling simplicity (i.e. plastic material can be easily molded/formed with using known/routine construction methods, in order to provide the cable/wire tray, the mounting post, and the tray cover with any required features). Consequently, it would have been an effortless and a trivial solution for a person knowledgeable in the art to select either plastic, composite material, metal, iron, copper, aluminum, brass, or stainless steel, as the material for forming the cable/wire tray, the mounting post, tray cover, and/or any other parts of the cable/wire installation apparatus taught by Vogeler, predicated on the necessary physical characteristics of said cable/wire installation apparatus and to optimize the overall functionality of said cable/wire installation apparatus.
In regards to claim 6, Vogeler teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Vogeler further teach (Figures 1-6), the cable/wire tray (plate 108 and hollow hub 112 of the wire reel 106) having a spool of cable/wire (wound electric fence wire 114, which is formed around the hollow hub 112); wherein, one end of the spool of cable/wire (wound electric fence wire 114) is free. Yet, Vogeler does not explicitly disclose, one end of the spool of cable/wire (wound electric fence wire 114) being secured to the cable/wire tray (plate 108 and hollow hub 112 of the wire reel 106).
Nevertheless, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to securely attach one end of the cable/wire (electric fence wire 114) to the cable/wire tray (plate 108 and hollow hub 112 of the wire reel 106) in Vogeler’s cable/wire installation apparatus (apparatus 10). Such a modification would facilitate winding of the cable/wire into a tightly wound spool by imparting an effective pulling force on said cable/wire when it is rotated in a winding direction; while also ensuring that one end of the cable/wire remain attached to the cable/wire tray, when said cable/wire is unwound and dispensed from said cable/wire tray (which would enable the cable/wire to be quickly and easily rewound in an efficient manner when required).
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (U.S. Patent 11,040,846 B2) in view of Vogeler.
In regards to claim 1, Hicks teach (Figures 1-8) a cable/wire installation apparatus (10) comprising: a center shaft (30) that includes a bucket extension (14 with 16) at one end, and a spool extension (32 with 102) at an opposite end; wherein a free end of the bucket extension (14) has a lip extension (16) that points towards earth (as clearly illustrated in figures 1 and 3), while a free end of the spool extension (32) has a post holder (102) with a central through hole (axially extending hole of 102 that receives 22) and a post holder upper surface (upper surface of 102, which contacts/faces 24); a mounting post (22 with 28) that includes a shaft (22); wherein the shaft (22) of the mounting post (22 with 28) is inserted into the central through hole (axially extending hole of 102) of the post holder (102), such that said shaft (22) freely rotates about said central through hole (axially extending hole of 102); and a cable/wire tray (24 with 91) that includes a base (24) having an upper surface (upper surface of 24, which contacts/faces 91/92) accommodating and securely holding a cable/wire (92), a lower surface (lower surface of 24, which contacts/faces 102), a through hole (central opening of 24 that receives 22) for removably and securely mounting the base (24) onto the shaft (22) of the mounting post (22 with 28), and at least one first spool side wall (91) on the upper surface (upper surface of 24) of the base (24) for engaging and wrapping the cable/wire (91) around it (see also Col. 4, line 23 - Col. 7, line 14). Yet, Hicks fail to teach, the mounting post (22) additionally including a post stop that has has an upper surface on which the base (24) of the cable/wire tray (24 with 91) rests, and a lower surface that rests on the post holder upper surface (upper surface of 102) of the post holder (upper surface of 32 that faces 24) when the shaft (22) of the mounting post (22 with 28) is inserted into the central through hole (axially extending hole of 102) of the post holder (102).
On the contrary, Vogeler teach (Figures 1-6) a cable/wire installation apparatus (apparatus 10) comprising: a center shaft (tubular member 40) that includes a bucket extension (sleeve/collar 36) having a lip extension (support member 28), and a spool extension (outer bearing 62 and inner bearing 66) having a post holder (inner bearing 66) with a central through hole (axially extending hole of the inner bearing 66, which receives the shaft 70) and a post holder upper surface (inner end surface of the inner bearing 66, which contacts the plate 80); a mounting post (shaft 70 with the locking collar 84 and the set screw 85) that includes a shaft (shaft 70) configured to freely rotate about the central through hole of the post holder (axially extending hole of the inner bearing 66), and a post stop (plate 80) having an upper surface (inner end surface of the plate 80, which contains the pin/stud 82 and contacts the plate 108) and a lower surface (outer end surface of the plate 80, which contacts the inner bearing 66); and a cable/wire tray (plate 108 and hollow hub 112 of the wire reel 106) that includes a base (plate 108 of the wire reel 106) having an upper surface (inner end surface of the plate 108, which contacts/faces the wound electric fence wire 114) for accommodating and securely holding a cable/wire (electric fence wire 114), a lower surface (outer end surface of the plate 108, which contacts the plate 80), a through hole (opening 116 of the plate 108) for removably and securely mounting the base (plate 108) onto the shaft (shaft 70), and at least one first spool side wall (hollow hub 112 of the wire reel 106) on the upper surface of the base (inner end surface of the plate 108) for engaging and wrapping the cable/wire (electric fence wire 114) around it; wherein one end of the shaft (inner end 72 of the shaft 70) is inserted into the central through hole of the post holder (axially extending hole of the inner bearing 66), the lower surface of the post stop (outer end surface of the plate 80) rests on the post holder upper surface of the post holder (inner end surface of the inner bearing 66), and the base (plate 108) rests on the upper surface of the post stop (inner end surface of the plate 80) (see also Col. 3, line 31 - Col. 5, line 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mounting post in Hicks’ cable/wire installation apparatus, with a post stop having an upper surface and a lower surface, as suggested by Vogeler; where the upper surface of the post stop is capable of supporting the base of the cable/wire tray (i.e. when the shaft of the mounting post is inserted into the central through hole of the post holder of the spool extension), while the lower surface of the post stop rest on the post holder upper surface of the post holder of the spool extension (i.e. when the shaft of the mounting post is inserted into the central through hole of the post holder of the spool extension). Configuring the mounting post with such a post stop would be advantageous in effectively maintaining the axial position of the mounting post relative to the post holder (i.e. the engagement between the lower surface of the post stop and the post holder upper surface of the post holder, will effectively prevent the mounting post from moving/sliding in a downward direction towards the earth when the spool of cable/wire is formed on the cable/wire tray or around said mounting post), while also ensuring that the cable/wire tray is sufficiently spaced from the post holder and supported in manner that facilitate its low-friction rotation relative to the post holder/spool extension/center shaft (which would enable a cable/wire to be effortlessly wound or unwound as required).
In regards to claims 4, 6-8, and 10-11, Hicks in view of Vogeler teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Hicks further teach (Figures 1-8), a tray cover (25) having a central opening (central opening of 25 that receives 22) that is inserted into top of the shaft (22) of the mounting post (22 with 28), such that a portion of said tray cover (25) substantially covers the cable/wire tray (24); the cable/wire tray (24) including a spool of cable/wire (92); one end of the spool of cable/wire (end of 92 that is attached to 26) being engageably secured (via 26) to the cable/wire tray (24), while an opposite end of said spool of cable/wire (92) being free (as clearly illustrated in figures 1 and 3); the cable/wire tray (25) having at least one inner sidewall (inner circumferential surface of the central opening of 24) and at least one outer sidewall (outer circumferential surface of 24); the mounting post (22) including at least one securing means (28) at one end to securely hold the tray cover (25); and at least one support bracket (34) that securely supports the spool extension (32) on the center shaft (30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 would be allowable over the prior art made of record, if they are rewritten to overcome the above noted objections, for the following reasons:
In regards to claims 12 and 17, the prior art of record, either individually or in combination fail to teach or render obvious, a cable/wire installation apparatus having the specific structure recited by independent claim 12 or by independent claim 17. In particular, a cable/wire installation apparatus comprising: a center shaft that includes a bucket extension having a lip extension which points towards earth, and a spool extension having a post holder with a central through hole; a post that includes a post stop having an upper surface, and a lower surface which rests on the post holder when one end of said post stop is inserted into the central through hole of said post holder; a cable/wire tray that includes a through hole for receiving the post, such that a base of the cable/wire tray rests on the upper surface of the post stop; and an installation bucket that includes a base, and a sidewall having a bottom end connected to the base, a top end, and at least one lip extension connected along at least a portion of said top end; wherein, the bucket extension of the center shaft is configured to rests on top of the at least one lip extension of the sidewall, while the lip extension of the bucket extension is configured to be placed inside the installation bucket.
As explained above, Hicks in view of Vogeler can propose a cable/wire installation apparatus having a center shaft, a bucket extension with a lip extension, a spool extension with a post holder that defines a central through hole, a mounting post with shaft and a post stop defining an upper surface and a lower surface, and a cable/wire tray with a through hole, which are all arranged in the exact manner described in limitations of claims 12 and 17. Hicks further teach (Figures 1-8), the cable/wire installation apparatus (10) also comprising: an installation bucket (20 and 114) that includes a base (20), and a sidewall (114) having a bottom end (lower end of 114 that is attached to 20) connected to the base (20), a top end (upper end of 114 that is attached to 56), and at least one lip extension (42) connected along the top end of the sidewall (114); where the lip extension (42) of the bucket extension (16) is positioned inside the installation bucket (20 and 114). However, Hicks does not reveal, the bucket extension (16) of the center shaft (30) at least partially resting on the at least one lip extension (42) of the sidewall (114). Other examples in the prior art, such as Poop (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0210200 A1), Becker et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0137254 A1), Wall (U.S. Patent 4,208,021 A), Beyer (U.S. Patent 6,042,046 A), and Bates (U.S. Patent 10,934,118 B1), all suggest a cable/wire installation apparatus having an installation bucket configured to hold, wind, unwind, and/or dispense reeled material. Yet, said prior art documents neither disclose nor conceive, the complete structural arrangement of the cable/wire installation apparatus that is articulated within claims 12 and 17. Consequently, claim 12 and claim 17 limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are considered in light of applicant’s specification.
Claims 13-16 depends from claim 12, while claims 18-20 depends from claim 17. Subsequently, claims 13-16 and 18-20 also contains the above noted allowable subject matter in respective parent claims 12 and 17. Examiner further notes that claims 13-16 and 18-20 are not indicated as being allowable due to the above noted objections to parent claims 12 and 17.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form (i.e. including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims) and if it’s rewritten to overcome the above noted objections, for the following reasons:
In regards to claim 9, Vogeler or Hicks in view of Vogeler, can teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Yet, Vogeler fail to disclose, the outer sidewall of the cable/wire tray (outer circumferential surface of the plate 108) in the cable/wire installation apparatus (apparatus 10) having at least one opening for a passage of at least one cable/wire (wire 106); Similarly, Hicks also fail to propose, the outer sidewall of the cable/wire tray (outer circumferential surface of 24) in the cable/wire installation apparatus (10) having at least one opening for a passage of at least one cable/wire (92). In fact, the spool of cable/wire in the cable/wire installation apparatus taught either by both Vogeler and Hicks, is configured to rest on top of the cable/wire tray, and said cable/wire is not designed to be threaded or dispensed through an opening in the outer sidewall of said cable/wire tray. Furthermore, none of the other prior art of record, neither teach nor render obvious, a cable/wire installation apparatus having the precise structure recited within parent claim 1, additionally including an opening that extends through the outer sidewall of the cable/wire tray in said cable/wire installation apparatus (or a cable/wire passing through such an opening in the outer sidewall of the cable/wire tray). Resultingly, claim 9 limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art references; specially when said limitations are considered in light of applicant’s specification, and when they are considered together with the superseding limitations in parent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s arguments in pages 7-8 of the remarks filed on 12/03/2025, regarding the previously set forth objections to the drawings and the specification, all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, said drawings and specification objections has been withdrawn.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in page 8 of the remarks filed on 12/03/2025, regarding the previously set forth objections to claims 1, 12, and 17, all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Hence, said claim objections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new objections are made for claims 1, 5, 9-10, 12, and 17, as noted above.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in page 8 of the remarks filed on 12/03/2025, regarding the previously set forth rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, said rejections has been withdrawn.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in pages 8-9 of the remarks filed on 12/03/2025, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection for claim 1, in view of Vogeler, all have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
It’s the applicant’s position that Vogeler does not explicitly disclose each and every element of the claimed cable/wire installation apparatus, in the exact manner recited by claim 1 limitations. Nevertheless, examiner emphasize that these arguments fail to specifically pointing out the disagreements with the examiner’s contentions as it related to the teachings of Vogeler; in other words, applicant does not clearly discuss nor explain how the amendments to claim 1 avoid the Vogeler reference or distinguish it from the Vogeler reference. Furthermore, these arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they amount to a general allegation that the claim 1 define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the applied reference (i.e. Vogeler), and because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks said claim present in view of the state of the art disclosed by said reference (i.e. Vogeler). Therefore, the examiner maintains that Vogeler still anticipates all claim 1 limitations as detailed above.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in pages 8-9 of the remarks filed on 12/03/2025, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claims 4, 7-8, and 10-11, in view of Vogeler, all have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in pages 9-10 of the remarks filed on 12/03/2025, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 2-3 and 5-6, in view of Vogeler, all have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
It’s the applicant’s position that Vogeler cannot render obvious the limitations of claims 2-3 and 5-6, because neither Vogeler nor other cited prior art explicitly teach nor suggest, the cable/wire tray, the mounting post, and the tray cover in the cable/wire installation apparatus being constructed from at least one of recited material (i.e. plastic, rubber, metal, iron, copper, aluminum, brass, stainless steel, composite material, or combinations thereof), and one end of the cable-wire being secured to the cable/wire tray. Applicant further states that examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence in the prior art or in the knowledge generally available in the art, to properly establish a prima facia case of obviousness.
In response to applicant’s assertion that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, plastic, rubber, metal (e.g. iron, copper, aluminum, brass, and stainless steel), and composite material are generally well known in the art, and are commonly used to manufacture various components of prior art cable/wire installation apparatuses, based on desired/required structural, functional, and performance characteristics and/or constraints. In fact, examiner invites the applicant to consider the disclosures of Brogden (U.S. PGPUB 2006/0102767 A1; paragraphs 0079-0080), Brogden (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0065595 A1; paragraphs 0154-0155), Beyer (U.S. Patent 6,042,046 A), Rosaen (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0065764 A1), and other prior-art references that are cited in the PTO-892 (dated 07/03/2025), which reveal certain component, parts, and/or features of cable/wire installation apparatuses (e.g. frame structures, center shafts, mounting posts/structures, spindles, mandrels, reel/spool structures, etc.) being construed from plastic, metal, or composite material. Additionally, examiner maintain that one of ordinary skill in the art would have the necessary knowledge and the ability to construct any part of Vogeler’s cable/wire installation apparatus using any preferred/available material, such as any plastic material, any rubber material, any metal material (e.g. iron, copper, aluminum, brass, stainless steel), or any composite material; specially since such an action would be a trivial solution that is routinely carried out in the art, and because claims 2-3 and 5 do not recite the precise composition/type of plastic, rubber, metal, or composite are being used to make the cable/wire tray, the mounting post, and the tray cover. Also, examiner respectfully request the applicant to list other possible material that can conceivably be used (i.e. besides plastic, rubber, metal, and composite material) to form the cable/wire tray, the mounting post, and the tray cover. Moreover, as explained above in the claim 6 rejection statement, securely attaching one end of the cable/wire to the cable/wire tray in Vogeler’s cable/wire installation apparatus, would have been a simple modification to one of ordinary skill in the art that is looking to improve the winding of the cable/wire around the fist spool side wall of said cable/wire tray, without significantly altering the overall operative functionality or the structure of the cable/wire installation apparatus. Resultingly, claims 2-3 and 5-6 strands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in page 10 of the remarks filed on 12/03/2025, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 1, in view of Hicks and Vogeler, all have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
It’s the applicant contention that the combined teachings of Hicks and Vogeler cannot propose a cable/wire installation apparatus according to amended claim 1, because Vogeler fails to cure the deficiencies in Hicks. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. As explained above in the claim 1 rejection statement, Hicks teach a cable/wire installation apparatus having the specific structure recited by claim 1 limitations, with the exception of the mounting post in said cable/wire installation apparatus including a post stop for resting on the post holder upper surface of the post holder and for supporting the base of the cable/wire tray; nevertheless, Vogeler does disclose, a mousing post of a cable/wire installation apparatus including a shaft and a post stop that has the exact structural arrangement and that is operationally configured to function in the specific manner described by claim 1. Consequently, it’s the examiner’s conclusion that Hicks in view of Vogeler can still render obvious all claim 1 limitations.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in page 10 of the remarks filed on 12/03/2025, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections to claims 4, 6-7, and 10-11, in view of Hicks and Vogeler, all have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 RAVEEN J DIAS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2195. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00AM - 4:30PM, Alternate Fridays.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654