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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 13th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims received on March 13th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 12, and 17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, that Willingham only teaches setting the second stop position and leaving at that position at all times during and after the cord is applied to the cord storage device of Willingham, and Boggs only teaches that to remove a cord from the device the user the entire lower arm is moved longitudinally on the shaft. While it has been admitted in the previous office action that Willingham fails to disclose an adjustment of a pivoting position, it should be emphasized that Willingham clearly depicts a other embodiments of the invention wherein that allow for the hinge 20 of the guide 14 being pivotable and locking at varying angles and degrees (see page 3, paragraph 31). For this reason, the teachings of Boggs is introduced, wherein Boggs teaches a first and second arm that are adjustable in angle and clearly depicts and encompasses both adjustments of angles ranging from acuteness to obtuseness (see figures 2, 7, and page 7, lines 1-9). Regarding the argument that the removal of the cord of the prior art references differs from that of the claimed invention, it should be noted and emphasized that if the prior art references are capable of the same function of pivoting to a set degree or angle then the intended use of removing the cord after setting a desired degree to the arms is obvious within the art. In this instance, both the prior art references disclose such functionality.
Absent structural differences between a claim and a prior art material or article, a recitation of the claimed material or article’s intended use cannot alone patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 I-II, citing, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Thus, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as Willingham and Boggs discloses and teaches, it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 II, citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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 1-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willingham (US 2018/0070688 A1), in view of Boone (US 2018/0109049 A1), and in further view of Boggs (AU 690511 B3).
Regarding claims 1-2, 7, 12, 14, and 17, Willingham discloses a cord storage device (corresponding to the coiling device mentioned in the abstract and the preamble of the claims) comprising:
a longitudinally extending main body having a first end, a second end and an outer surface (shaft 24 having two ends as depicted in figs. 1A-1D);
a first pivot arm pivotally connected to the main body adjacent the first end of the main body, the first pivot arm linearly fixed to the longitudinally extending main body, (pg. 2, ¶23, & fig.1A, body of coil guide 14), the first pivot arm pivoting between a first stop position generally linear with the longitudinally extending main body (depicted in figs. 1A-1C) and a second stop position at an angle to the longitudinally extending main body (depicted in fig. 1D), and wherein at least a portion of the first pivot arm can subsequently pivot angularly past the second stop position at an angle upon manipulation of the first pivot arm for removal of the cord from the cord storage device (described in pg. 3, ¶31, & depicted in fig. 3B); and,
a second pivot arm pivotally connected to the main body adjacent the second end of the main body (pg. 2, ¶23, & fig.1A, body of coil guide 14), the second pivot arm pivoting between a first stop position generally linear with the longitudinally extending main body (depicted in figs. 1A-1C) and a second stop position at a specified angle to the longitudinally extending main body (depicted in fig. 1D), wherein the second pivot arm is prevented from pivoting angularly past the second stop position at all times (described in pg. 3, ¶31, & depicted in fig. 2B); and
wherein the first pivot arm and the second pivot arm have integral stops to prevent pivoting of the first and second pivot arms, respectively, past the second stop position (described in pg. 3, ¶31, & depicted in figs. 3B and 2B).
Willingham fails to disclose the main body having a bore extending though the main body. However, Boone teaches a bore extending through the longitudinally extending main body from the first end to the second end to create a sidewall between the bore and the outer surface (pg. 2, ¶23, first channel 12), a longitudinal slit extending through the sidewall from the outer surface to the bore, the slit extending from the first end of the main body to the second end of the main body (pg. 2, ¶23, second channel 14).
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 bore with a longitudinal slit extend from one end to the other of a longitudinally extended main body to provide a storage compartment for storing the initial or final layer of a wound tube, wire, or coil.
Willingham and Boone both fail to disclose and teach wherein the first pivot arm can subsequently pivot angularly past the second stop position for removal of the cord, and further fail to disclose or teach the slide lock having a tab that engages the first pivot arm. However, Boggs teaches wherein after the second stop position of the first pivot arm is set and a cord is stored on the cord storage device the first pivot arm can subsequently pivot angularly past the second stop position for removal of the cord from the cord storage device (Fig. 2 & Pg. 7, Ln. 1-9), and a slide lock connected to the longitudinally extending main body of the cord storage device and axially moveable on the longitudinally extending main body between a lock position and an unlock position, the slide lock having a tab that engages the first pivot arm when the slide lock is in the lock position to prevent the first pivot arm from pivoting beyond the second stop position (Pg. 6, Ln. 16-29 & Fig. 6, catch 14, beveled lip 15, and circular aperture 16). 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 pivot arms that pivot to a degree which allows the cord to slide off for use, as well as a tab incorporated into the slide lock for pivot management, to provide a means for an efficient way of unequipping the cord coil while still maintaining control of maximum pivot radius.
Regarding claim 3, Willingham fails to disclose a longitudinal slot on the side wall of the slide lock. However, Boggs teaches wherein the slide lock has a longitudinal slot extending through a sidewall of the slide lock (Pg. 6, Ln. 16-29 & Fig. 6, aperture 17). 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 slot extending through a side wall of a slide lock to provide the slide lock to slide into position for use.
Regarding claim 4, Willingham fails to disclose a rotatable slide lock. However, Boggs teaches wherein the slide lock is also rotatable about the outer surface of the longitudinally extending main body (best depicted in Figs. 16-19 wherein the cleats can be rotated to be oriented in certain positions). 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 rotatable slide locks to the cord storage device to provide a means for incorporating a plurality of cord storage mechanisms.
Regarding claim 5, Willingham discloses wherein the first pivot arm has a first lower edge (fig. 3A), wherein the second pivot arm has a second lower edge (fig. 2A), wherein the first lower edge of the first pivot arm is positioned a first distance from a pivot point of the first pivot arm, wherein the second lower edge of the second pivot arm is positioned a second distance from a pivot point of the second pivot arm (pg. 2, ¶25, & fig. 1D, hinges 20), and wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (fig. 1 depicts the two hinges 20 having different distances from each other while one distance is greater than the other).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Willingham and Boone both fail to disclose a third and fourth pivot arm. However, Boggs teaches further comprising a third pivot arm pivotally connected to the main body adjacent the first end of the main body, and a fourth pivot arm pivotally connected to the main body adjacent the second end of the main body (fig. 9 depicting four cleats 4,5).
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 third and fourth pivot arm to the main body of a cord storage device to provide a means of storing multiple materials.
Regarding claim 8, Willingham discloses wherein the first pivot arm and the second pivot arm have integral stops to prevent pivoting of the first and second pivot arms, respectively, past the second stop position (described in pg. 3, ¶31, & demonstrated in figs. 3B and 2B).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Willingham discloses wherein the pivot axis of the first pivot arm crosses a vertical axis of the bore of the longitudinally extending main body (depicted as the open position of fig. 1D), and wherein the pivot axis of the first pivot arm does not cross a vertical axis of the bore of the longitudinally extending main body (depicted as the closed position of figs. 1A-1C). Although Willingham does not disclose a bore on the main body, Boone’s teachings do (pg. 2, ¶23, first channel 12) and it would prove obvious to one skilled in the art that the vertical axis of the bore is synonymous to the vertical axis of the main body, and when combining the main body with the bore with the first pivot arm in the open and closed position, it would encompass the applicant’s claim. Rationales to have combined Willingham and Boone are stated for claims 1, 12, and 17 and are reincorporated.
Regarding claims 11, 16, and 19, both Willingham and Boone fail to disclose wherein the first and second pivot arms have different angles when in the open position. However, Boggs teaches wherein the angle of the second stop position of the first pivot arm is different from the angle of the second stop position of the second pivot arm. Although not specifically stated, Boggs teaches the cleats 4 and 5, corresponding to first and second pivot arms, being detachable and separate from each other (pg. 6, ln. 8-13) and that the cleats are angularly adjustable (pg. 7, ln. 1-9). Therefore, because both cleats are separate elements, 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 cleats of Boggs with the cord storage device to provide one pivot arm having an acute angle for a tighter grip on the material while the second pivot arm having a wider angle for multiple layers of material, or vice versa, to prevent the material from falling while coiling or winding.
Regarding claim 13, both Willingham and Boone fail to disclose wherein the pivot arm is able to move past a second position. However, Boggs teaches wherein at least a portion of the first pivot arm can subsequently pivot angularly past the second stop position upon manipulation of the cord storage device. The teachings of Boggs provide an angularly adjustable cleat wherein the teeth provide more than two positions for the cleat to be in (pg. 7, ln. 1-9). 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 angularly adjustable cleats of Boggs with the cord storage device to provide a means for the coiling of materials with varying thickness or diameters.
Regarding claim 15, Willingham discloses wherein the first pivot arm has a flexible portion to allow a portion of the first pivot arm to be bent (the arms being made of plastic material pg. 2, ¶25). Although flexibility or bendability is not directly stated, it is understood that plastic materials vary from rigid plastics to flexible and bendable plastics.
Conclusion
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, 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 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
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/JAMES J LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights