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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
In line 1, the phrase “is disclosed” should be removed.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶0048, first plate reference character “120” should read ---100--- and second plate reference character “220” should read ---200---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 12, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 14, “a central axis” should read ---the central axis---.
In line 2 of claims 12 and 15, “the depth” should read ---a depth---.
In claim 17, line 2, “(d)” should read ---(e)---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a means of securing” in the last line of claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-19 are 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.
Regarding line 5 of claims 1, 8, and 13, the phrase "a fourth" renders the claim indefinite and incomplete because it is unclear what the “fourth” is referring too. The phrase, “a fourth” should read ---a fourth wing---.
Claims 2-7 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 1.
Claims 9-12 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 8.
Claims 14-19 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanner (US1414237A) in view of Ye (CN115432513A).
Regarding claims 1-5, 8-10, and 13, Wanner discloses a cable winder system, the system comprising: a first plate (3, shown vertically; Figures 1-2) having a first end (left side nearest handle 1) and a second end (right side), the first end having a first oblong slot (4 of vertical plate 3; Figure 4) along a central axis intermediate a first wing (upper portion) and a second wing (lower portion); a second plate (3, shown horizontally) having a third end (right side) and a fourth end (left side nearest handle 1), the third end having a second oblong slot (4 of horizontal plate 3) along the central axis intermediate a third wing (upper portion) and a fourth (lower portion); a first handle (5; Figures 1-3) positioned on the first plate (3, shown vertically) offset from the central axis and proximate the second end; and a second handle (1) positioned on the second plate (3, shown horizontally) along the central axis and proximate the fourth end; and wherein the first plate (3, shown vertically) and the second plate (3, shown laying horizontally) are configured to couple along the central axis via the first oblong slot (4 of vertical plate 3) of the first plate (3, shown vertically) and the second oblong slot (4 of horizontal plate 3) of the second plate (3, shown horizontally), but fails to teach wherein the first, second, third and fourth wing comprises: a first, third, fifth, and seventh aperture, having a circular shape, at the second and fourth end; and a second, fourth, sixth, and eighth aperture, having an oval shape, at the second and fourth end intermediate the first, third, fifth, or seventh aperture and the central axis; wherein at least one of the first wing, the second wing, the third wing, or the fourth wing comprises a means of securing a cable.
Ye teaches a similar cable winder system and further teaches wherein the first, second, third and fourth wing (111; 121; Figure 2) comprises: a first, third, fifth, and seventh aperture (108), having a circular shape, at the second and fourth end; and a second, fourth, sixth, and eighth aperture (1301), having an oval shape, at the second and fourth end intermediate the first, third, fifth, or seventh aperture (108) and the central axis; wherein at least one of the first wing, the second wing, the third wing, or the fourth wing (111; 121) comprises a means (1301; 108; 122; Figures 8-9) of securing a cable (50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable winder system of Wanner to include the apertures and means of securing a cable as taught by Ye in order to secure the end of the cable to prevent the cable from loosening and provide tight winding to reduce product volume.
Regarding claims 6, 11, and 14, Wanner discloses wherein the first handle (5), the second handle (1; 6; Figure 2), or a combination thereof is a revolving handle.
Regarding claims 7, 12, and 15, Wanner discloses wherein a width of the first oblong slot (4 of vertical plate 3) and a width of the second oblong slot (4 of horizontal plate) is equal to a depth of the first plate (3, shown vertically) and a depth of the second plate (3, shown horizontally).
Regarding claim 16, Wanner discloses a method for winding a cable, the method comprising: (a) obtaining the cable winder system (Figures 1-4); (b) engaging the first plate (3, shown vertically) and the second plate (3, shown horizontally); and (d) rotate the cable winder system by winding the first handle to collect wound cable on the cable winder system, but fails to teach c) securing a first end of a cable to an aperture of the cable winder system.
Ye teaches a similar cable winder system and further teaches c) securing a first end (51; 52; Figure 9) of a cable (50) to an aperture (108) of the cable winder system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable winder system of Wanner to include the aperture as taught by Ye in order to secure the end of the cable to prevent the cable from loosening and provide tight winding to reduce product volume.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanner, in view of Ye, and in further view of Joung (KR20180088203A).
Regarding claim 17, modified Wanner discloses the above cable winder system, but fails to teach (d) placing one or more cable ties around the wound cable; and (f) securing the one or more cable ties.
Joung teaches a similar cable winder system and further teaches (d) placing one or more cable ties (page 3, last 4 paragraphs; Figure 5C) around the wound cable (500); and (f) securing the one or more cable ties (page 3, last paragraph – page 4, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable winder system of Wanner to include the cable ties as taught by Joung in order to secure the wound cable into a bundle to prevent the cable from unwinding and loosening.
Regarding claim 18, modified Wanner discloses the above cable winder system and further teaches (g) dis-engaging the first plate (3, shown vertically) and the second plate (3, shown horizontally), but fails to teach (h) removing the wound cable from the cable winder system.
Joung teaches a similar cable winder system and further teaches (h) removing the wound cable (500; Figure 5D) from the cable winder system (110, 120; Figures 5A-D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable winder system of Wanner to include the method of removal of the cable from the cable winder system as taught by Joung in order to allow for storage of the bundled cable separately.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanner, in view of Ye, and in further view of Fries (US2537522A).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wanner discloses the above cable winder system, but fails to teach prior to step (a), driving a ground staple into a surface; and running the cable through the ground staple.
Fries teaches a similar cable winder system and further teaches prior to step (a), driving a ground staple (35; Figure 1; column 2, lines 42-54) into a surface (37); and running the cable (16) through the ground staple (35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable winder system of Wanner to include the ground staple as taught by Fries in order to help guide the cable in the direction of the cable winder for proper cable winding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654