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 claims received on November 17th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 14, 18, and 22 have been amended. Objections to the claims filed on May 16th, 2025 have been withdrawn. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections filed on May 16th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 22 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 “an outer diameter of the pan defines a cable capacity of the pan with respect to an outer diameter of the cable spool that can be accommodated on the pan” is sufficient to place the application in condition for allowance. The examiner understands the presented limitation as a means of defining a maximum amount of cable stored onto the pan, wherein the ability of storing more cables is dependent on the pan’s outer diameter. The examiner points to the prior art reference Bookland (US 10,689,224 B1) where it describes the adjustability of the turntable in both height and in longitudinal direction, see Col. 4, Lines 12-17. While the applicant relies on the diameter of the pan for a cable holding capacity, Bookland teaches an adjustable means which includes adjusting the longitudinal members 40 up to the diameter of the platform 14 (corresponding to a pan). 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 defining a cable capacity based off of the pan diameter in order to provide a compact means of storage.
The applicant further argues that the addition of “a gap in the radial direction between the outer diameter of the pan and diametrically opposing vertical posts of the frame is less than a diameter of the cable of the cable spool that the cable turntable device is configured to dispense” is sufficient to place the application in condition for allowance. The examiner understands the presented limitation as a means for defining a gap between the vertical posts and the pan being of a smaller distance than a diameter of the stored cable. As previously stated, Bookland describes the adjustability of the turntable in both height and in longitudinal direction, see Col. 4, Lines 12-17. While the applicant relies on a fixed distance, Bookland allows for the adjustment of said gap. 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 smaller gap than the thickness or diameter of a cable in order to ensure no excess cable, or cable slack, falls between said gap.
In both arguments the applicant relies on a set of ranges for determining a capacity held or the size of gap. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust capacity limitations and gap sizes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. Reasons for obviousness are above and incorporated.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the gap of claims 1, 12, and 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 7-12, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandes (US 2,300,869 A) in view of Bookland (US 10,689,224 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 22, Brandes discloses a method of dispensing a cable from a cable spool, the method comprising:
providing a cable turntable device comprising:
a frame (Fig. 1, Arms 17, Uprights 16);
a pan attached to the frame (Fig. 1, Drum 10);
a plate rotatably attached to the pan (Fig. 1, Disk 12), wherein the plate comprises a plurality of pivot points circumferentially around and at an outer circumferential edge of the plate (Pg. 2, Ln. 63-75 & Fig. 1 depicts points on links 20 representing pivot points);
a plurality of arms pivotably attached to the plate, wherein each arm of the plurality of arms is attached to the plate at a corresponding one of the plurality of pivot points (Fig. 1, Arms 17); and
a knob that is rotatable between a locking position (Fig. 1, Lock Nut 43), in which the knob applies a compressive force that presses the plate against the pan to frictionally resist rotation of the plate relative to the pan, and an adjustment position, in which the compressive force is lessened or eliminated to allow the plate and the pan to rotate relative to each other (Pg. 2, Ln. 38-42), which allows the plurality of arms to pivot relative to the corresponding one of the plurality of pivot points on the plate (Pg. 1, Ln. 29-38);
wherein, by rotating each arm relative to the plate, the cable turntable device can be used for installation of cable spools of any of a plurality of interior diameters and lengths (Pg. 2, Ln. 15-35);
rotating each arm of the plurality of arms relative to the corresponding one of the plurality of pivot points on the plate to change an inner diameter of the cable turntable device (Pg. 1, Ln. 29-38);
providing the cable turntable device with the cable spool, the cable spool having an internal diameter that is a same as, or larger than, the inner diameter (Depicted in Fig. 1); and
dispensing a cable from the cable spool (Pg. 2-3, Claims 1-4 depict the reel allowing the payout of the cable);
wherein the inner diameter is a same as, or greater than, a minimum acceptable bend diameter for the cable of the cable spool (Pg. 2, Ln. 43-54). Brandes fails to disclose the turntable device being stackable. However, Bookland teaches providing each of the plurality of turntable devices with one of a plurality of cable spools, each cable spool of the plurality of cable spools comprising one of the plurality of cables, each of the plurality of cable spools having an internal diameter that is a same as, or larger than, the inner diameter of the cable turntable device with which such cable spool is associated (best depicted in Fig. 11 & Col. 6, Ln. 37-46);
vertically stacking the plurality of cable turntable devices sequentially on top of each other (Fig. 11); and
dispensing the plurality of cables simultaneously, each cable of the plurality of cables being dispensed from a different one of the plurality of cable turntable devices of the cable turntable system (Col. 4, Ln. 24-28);
wherein, in each of the plurality of cable turntable devices, the inner diameter is a same as, or greater than, a minimum acceptable bend diameter for the cable of the cable spool provided for such cable turntable device (best depicted in Fig. 11). 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 stackable feature to the turntable device to provide a means for storing multiple cables while allowing payout for efficient winding and payout means of multiple wires.
Brandes also fails to disclose a maximum cable capacity based on the pan. However, Bookland teaches an outer diameter of the pan defines a cable capacity of the pan with respect to an outer diameter of the cable spool that can be accommodated on the pan (Col. 4, Lines 12-17). 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 defining a cable capacity based off of the pan diameter in order to provide a compact means of storage
Brandes further fails to disclose a gap smaller than the diameter of the stored cable. However, Bookland teaches a gap in the radial direction between the outer diameter of the pan and diametrically opposing vertical posts of the frame is less than a diameter of the cable of the cable spool that the cable turntable device is configured to dispense (Col. 4, Lines 12-17). 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 smaller gap than the thickness or diameter of a cable in order to ensure no excess cable, or cable slack, falls between said gap.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Brandes discloses wherein the outer diameter of the pan is, alone or in conjunction with the gap on diametrically opposite sides of the pan, the same as, a distance between the diametrically opposing vertical posts of the frame (Pg. 2, Ln. 43-54 & best depicted in Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Brandes discloses a plurality of upper ends (Fig. 1, Upper end 19), but fails to disclose the turntable device being stackable. However, Bookland teaches comprising a plurality of feet rigidly attached to a bottom surface of the frame and a plurality of receiver caps rigidly attached to a top surface of the frame (Fig. 2, Upstanding leg 56), wherein each of the plurality of feet is positioned vertically coaxial with a corresponding one of the plurality of receiver caps (Fig. 2, Frictional pads 54), such that the cable turntable device is configured for vertical stacking on top of a first cable turntable device and, furthermore, such that the cable turntable device is configured for having a second cable turntable device vertically stacked on top of the cable turntable device (Col. 6, Ln. 18-24 & Fig. 11). ). 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 stackable feature to the turntable device to provide a means for storing multiple reels on top of each other for efficient storing means.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Brandes discloses wherein the pan is rotatably attached to the frame and/or the plate is coaxial with the pan (best depicted in Fig. 1, Drum 10, Disk 12, and Spreader arm 20).
Regarding claim 10, Brandes fails to disclose the turntable device being stackable. However, Bookland teaches a cable turntable system comprising a plurality of cable turntable devices, wherein two or more cable turntable devices of the plurality of cable turntable devices are the cable turntable device according to claim 1, wherein the two or more cable turntable devices are stacked sequentially on top of each other, and wherein the cable turntable system is configured for multiple cables to be dispensed simultaneously from the cable turntable system, each cable of the multiple cables being dispensed from a different one of the plurality of cable turntable devices (depicted in Fig. 11). 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 stackable feature to the turntable device to provide a means for storing multiple cables while allowing payout for efficient winding and payout means of multiple wires.
Regarding claim 11, Brandes fails to disclose the turntable device being stackable and having varying sized cables in each device. However, Bookland teaches wherein the multiple cables have a same or a different diameter from each other (depicted in Fig. 11). 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 stackable feature having cables varying in diameter and size to the turntable device to provide a means for storing different types of cables with different thicknesses and sizes.
Regarding claim 21, Brandes disclose comprising selectively controlling operation of the knob for adjusting the inner diameter of the cable turntable device by (Pg. 2, Ln. 41-43):
rotating the knob into the adjustment position to allow the pivoting movement of each of the arms relative to the corresponding one of the plurality of pivot points on the plate (Pg. 2, Ln. 55-75); and then rotating the knob into the locking position to frictionally resist a pivoting movement of each of the arms relative to the corresponding one of the plurality of pivot points on the plate (Pg. 2, Ln. 41-43).
Regarding claim 23, Brandes fails to disclose the turntable device being stackable and having varying sized cables in each device. However, Bookland teaches wherein the cable in each of the plurality of cable spools has a same or a different diameter from the cables of other cable spools of the plurality of cable spools (depicted in Fig. 11). 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 stackable feature having cables varying in diameter and size to the turntable device to provide a means for storing different types of cables with different thicknesses and sizes.
Claims 2-6 and 13-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandes (US 2,300,869 A), in view of Bookland (US 10,689,224 B1), in further view of Luick (US 1,191,904 A).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Brandes discloses wherein the pan comprises a plurality of fixed points rigidly attached thereto (Pg. 2, Claim 1, Ln. 51-59), but fails to disclose a plurality of slots. However, Luick teaches wherein each of the plurality of arms comprises a slot (Fig. 1, Slots 22); and the slot of each of the plurality of arms is configured to hold in a captive manner a corresponding one of the plurality of fixed points, so that the corresponding one of the plurality of fixed points can slide along a length of the slot, such that a pivoting movement of each of the arms is controlled in a manner of a cam and slider, or follower (Pg. 2, Ln. 36-42). 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 modified the arms and slots taught by Luick to be incorporated into the turntable device of Brandes to make the arm unitary with the slots to provide a cable turntable device with less parts.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Brandes discloses wherein the plurality of arms pivot simultaneously with each other to change the inner diameter of the cable turntable device, the inner diameter being a same as, or smaller than, the interior diameter of the cable spool designated for payoff from the cable turntable device (Pg. 2, Ln. 43-54 & best depicted in Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Brandes discloses wherein each of the plurality of arms has an L-shaped cross-section with a base portion, in which the slot is formed, and a vertically-extending arm portion, wherein, for each of the plurality of arms, a surface of the vertically-extending arm portion that is furthest radially from a central vertical axis of the cable turntable device defines, together, the inner diameter of the cable turntable device (Fig. 1, Uprights 16 & arm 17).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Brandes discloses comprising a central region defined radially inwardly of the vertically-extending arm portion of each of the plurality of arms, wherein the central region is substantially vacant to allow for storage therein of cable terminations for the cable of the cable spool (Fig. 1, Uprights 16 & arm 17).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Brandes fails to disclose a cover attached to the frame. However, Bookland teaches comprising a cover attached to the frame at an upper surface of the frame and spaced apart from an upper surface of the pan by at least a vertical height of the vertically-extending arm portion of each of the plurality of arms (Fig. 11, Turntable 12 acts as a cover while leaving room for vertically extending arm/posts 20), such that a distal end of the vertically-extending arm portion of each of the plurality of arms is adjacent to an inner surface of the cover to prevent passage of any of the cable of the cable spool from passing between the inner surface of the cover and the distal end of the vertically-extending arm portion of each of the plurality of arms (best depicted in Fig. 11), wherein the distal end of the vertically-extending arm portion of each of the plurality of arms is a point furthest away from where the vertically-extending arm portion is connected to the base portion of a same arm of the plurality of arms (depicted in Fig. 3), and wherein the inner surface of the cover faces the upper surface of the pan when the cover is in a closed position (depicted in Fig. 11). 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 cover on top of the turntable device to provide a protective layer for stacking while allowing reeling when covered.
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, 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
/ANNA M MOMPER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619