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
Amendment to the claims received October 24th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended, and claim 19 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 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, regarding claims 1 and 17, that Piepgras is silent as to any aluminum or steel components. While the examiner agrees with this, it should be noted that Ghio, does indeed teach the blanket roller device being made of metal. See Col. 3, Ln. 9-15, Ln. 63-65, and Col. 5, Ln. 34-46. While Ghio does not specifically call for aluminum or stainless steel, it should be noted that the limitation of the device being made of metal, or comprised of metal components, includes metallic materials such as the applicant’s proposed aluminum or stainless steel. In this instance, aluminum would allow for the device to be light weight and stainless steel would allow heavier loads to be wound and further provide rust resistance for harsher climates.
Applicant further argues, regarding claims 9 and 17, that Piepgras does not appear to teach or suggest a vertical roller bar support as well as teach or suggest a vertical roller bar support and the horizontal support members that can all rotate horizontally about an axis of the secondary axle. The examiner disagrees that Piepgras does not show that a vertical roller bar support which supports the vertical members. Figures 1 and 2 of Piepgras clearly show a vertical portion (elements 144, 146) connected to the horizontal bars (in this instance elements 162, 164). Furthermore, Piepgras’s figure 3 depicts an exploded view of the device which shows bearing 138 connected to the middle plates 144, 146 for rotation. This understanding is further supported by Col. 6, Ln. 36-57.
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 1-6, 9-10, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piepgras (US 7,766,270 B2), in view of Yoder (US 2004/0227031 A1), in view of Ghio (US 5,388,609 A), in view of Mansfield (US 5,139,751 A), and in further view of Corrigan (US 2022/0331630 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 9-10, 15-18, Piepgras discloses a blanket rolling device (Fig. 1, blanket roller 100) comprising:
a male hitch comprising a hitch pin (Col. 5, Ln. 7-11; Ln. 42-48, hitch tube 110, corresponding to a male hitch, with a hitch receiver 12, corresponding to an opening which further comprises a pin);
a height-adjustable vertical frame member being securable at a plurality of different heights via a locking pin (Col. 7, Ln. 1-12, riser 120 corresponding to a vertical frame member, being extendable in other embodiments to accommodate for vehicle size);
a secondary axle attached to the vertical frame member (Fig. 2, blanket roller 100 corresponding to a secondary axle) the secondary axle comprised of a vertical roller bar support configured to rotate horizontally about an axis of the secondary axle, a first horizontal bar, and a second horizontal bar attached to the vertical roller bar support and are also configured to rotate horizontally about an axis of the secondary axle (Col. 6, Ln. 36-57, middle plate 144, 146, 148 corresponding to a vertical bar, and first and second material supports 162, 164 corresponding to first and second horizontal bars); and
a handle that rotates the secondary axle (Fig. 1, handle 180).
Piepgras fails to disclose an axle. However, Yoder teaches an axle comprised of a roller that rotates horizontally about the axle (Pg. 4, ¶37, roller 40 corresponding to an axle, and a wrapping shaft 10 corresponding to a second axle). Although an axle isn’t necessary specified, it is understood that, given the nature of a roller, an axle is required for rotation. 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 the arrangement of an axle with a roller having the arrangement of a secondary axle being rotatable by a handle, to provide a means for guiding the material when winding. It is also understood that Yoder’s rolling device comprises a way for automatic winding using a motor attached to one of the axles, however, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a motor for a hand crank of sorts to provide a simpler arrangement while providing similar results such as in rolling a blanket or fence.
Piepgras also fails to disclose the grip being made of rubber. However, Ghio teaches wherein the handle comprises a rubber grip area (Fig. 3 & Col. 3, Ln. 41-50, handle bar 50, and grip 52). 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 incorporate a rubber grip to the handle to provide a means of better control when cranking the handle.
Piepgras also fails to disclose the blanket rolling device being made of a metal. However, Ghio teaches the axle, the vertical frame member, and the secondary axle are made of a metal component (Col. 5, Ln. 34-46). 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 metallic components to the blanket rolling device as it would prove advantageous to make the device out of a sturdy material. In this instance, aluminum would allow for the device to be light weight and stainless steel would allow heavier loads to be wound and further provide rust resistance for harsher climates.
While both Ghio and Piepgras fail to disclose or teach protrusions on the grip, it should be noted that incorporating protrusions configured to conform to a user's hand is known within the art as further taught by Mansfield in figure 4, and seen on handle 92. 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 protrusions to the grip in order to provide enhanced grabbing means when winding.
Piepgras further fails to disclose extending the vertical frame member to a desired height and securing the vertical frame at the desired height via a locking pin. However, with the disclosure of a telescoping vertical member and the teachings of locking members to lock a vertical member (Pg. 2, ¶26) taught by Corrigan, 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 locking pins to the telescoping vertical member in order to lock the member in place to prevent malfunction.
Regarding claim 2, Piepgras fails to disclose wherein the roller can rotate. However, Yoder teaches wherein the roller can rotate 360 degrees around the axle horizontally (Pg. 4, ¶37, roller 40). Although a degree of rotation is not specified, it is understood that the roller 40 is intended to complete full horizontal revolutions to accommodate for longer material when guiding. 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 the arrangement of an axle with a roller rotating freely with the arrangement of a secondary axle, to provide a means for guiding longer material when winding.
Regarding claim 3, Piepgras discloses wherein the secondary axle can rotate 360 degrees horizontally (Col. 5, Ln 7-22). Although a degree of rotation is not specified, it is understood that the blanket roller 100 is intended to complete full horizontal revolutions to accommodate for longer material when winding, and as understood by arrow 190.
Regarding claims 4-5, and 13, Piepgras fails to disclose wherein the secondary axle is positioned above the axle, and wherein the axle is parallel to the secondary axle. However, Yoder teaches wherein the secondary axle is positioned above the axle, and wherein the axle is parallel to the secondary axle (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, ¶37). 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 the arrangement of an axle positioned bellow and in parallel with a roller with the arrangement of a secondary axle being manually wound, to provide an advantageous placement of the wound material so that a normal force pushes the unwound material towards the bottom for ease of guidance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references further comprise inventions having similar components to that of the claimed invention.
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