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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/480,474 (filed on 01/18/2023) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
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, an elongated material and a coil/reel (recited within claim 1), all must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In claim 1, line 9, the limitation “the unwinding;” should read -- the unwinding process; --.
In claim 1, line 12, the limitation “adjusting tension/toque allows said spindle” should read -- adjusting tension/toque to allow said spindle --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 limitation “an elongated material wound into a coil and/or reel” (in line 2) render the claim vague and indefinite, because it is unclear how the same elongated material can simultaneously be wound into a coil and a reel at the same time. Although, it is possible to wind the elongated material into a coil or a reel, examiner fails to comprehend how said elongated material can be wound into both a coil and a reel during the same winding process. Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claim 1 limitation “a feed system for said spindle” (in line 6) render the claim vague and indefinite, because it appears to contradict the description for the claimed invention that is provided in the specification/drawings. According to at least paragraph 0027 of the specification, the feed system (40) of the invention (10) is configured to move the elongated material into and out of the spindle (30) of said invention (10). In other words, based on examiner’s understanding, the feed system is an independent and distinct structure/component from the spindle; therefore, it is unclear how the feed system can be “for” the spindle as recited within claim 1. Is this limitation simply attempting to state that the feed system being configured to cooperatively operate with the spindle, or the feed system being a part/component of the spindle? Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claim 1 limitation “said computer control adjusting tension/torque allows said spindle to maintain a constant speed” (in lines 12-13) render the claim vague and indefinite. Is the computer control adjusting the tension/torque supplied to the spindle so as to causes the spindle to rotate at a constant speed, or is the computer control adjusting the tension/torque supplied to the proportional-integral-derivative controlled electromagnetic brake system so as to causes the spindle to rotate at a constant speed? In other words, what specific tension/torque is being adjusted by the computer control? Furthermore, it is also unclear how computer control can maintain the spindle at a constant speed, if the proportional-integral-derivative controlled electromagnetic brake system (which is attached to the spindle) is configured to act on said spindle to control its rotation. Wouldn’t the actuation of the proportional-integral-derivative controlled electromagnetic brake system prevent the spindle from rotating at a constant speed? Clarification by the applicant is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reid Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 6,290,610 B1 hereinafter referred to as “Reid”).
In regards to claim 1, Reid teach (Figures 1-4) a constant tension application spooler and coiler system (10) that provides constant desired tension (via 32/42/48) on an elongated material (26) wound into a coil/reel (26 wound around 27 of 22), during a winding process and an unwinding process, comprising: a frame (frame of 10 as described in Col. 5, line 12-14); a spindle (36/46/52, which engages 26 via 34/44/50) rotationally fixed to the frame (frame of 10); a feed system (12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 30, 40, 58, and 60) for the spindle (36/46/52); a proportional–integral–derivative controlled electromagnetic brake system (38/47/54, which are controlled by 68 using an Proportional-Integral-Derivative/PID control function or algorithm, as disclosed in Col. 5, line 22 - Col. 7, line 6) attached to the spindle (36/46/52), so as to provides constant desired tension (via 34/44/50) during the winding process and the unwinding process; and a computer control (68, which sends 72/74/76 to 38/47/54) in communication with the spindle (36/46/52) and the proportional–integral–derivative controlled electromagnetic brake system (38/47/54); wherein the computer control (68) adjusting tension/torque (via 72/74/76) supplied to the proportional–integral–derivative controlled electromagnetic brake system (38/47/54), so as to maintain the spindle (36/46/52) at a constant speed (based on the disclosure in Col. 5, line 22 - Col. 7, line 6, it is apparent that 68 maintain the rotation of 36/46/52 at an appropriate constant speed via the controlled actuation of 38/47/54, at least for a given period of time, until the tension/drag on 26 reaches a required or a desirable level) (see also Col. 4, line 3 - Col. 7, line 6).
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 5 of the remarks filed on 12/02/2025, regarding the previously set forth objections to the drawings, all have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Examiner acknowledge that the previous drawings objections pertaining to the reference characters 15, 70, and 100 are appropriately resolved by the amendments made to paragraph 0023-0025 of the specification. Nevertheless, applicant does not appear to address nor argue the above noted drawing objections that are still persisting within the application.
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 5 of the remarks filed on 12/02/2025, regarding the previously set forth rejections for claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, said rejections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made for claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as detailed above.
With respect to applicant's arguments in pages 5 of the remarks filed on 12/02/2025, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claim 1, in light of Reid, all have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they appear to amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references used to formulate the prior art rejections. In addition, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited, and they do not show how the amendments avoid such references.
Examiner suggest that the applicant submit arguments pointing out disagreements with the examiner' s contentions; to include statements that discuss the references applied against the claims, and a detailed explanation of how the claim limitations avoid the references or distinguish from them references.
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 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