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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, “the central axis” should read ---a central axis---.
In claim 17, line 2, “(d)” should read ---(e)---.
In claim 22, lines 3 and 6, “slotted and” should read ---slotted end---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 9, and 23 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.
Claims 7 and 23 recites the limitation "the first oblong slot" and “the second oblong slot”. How does the “first oblong slot” and “second oblong slot” in claims 7 and 23 relate to the oblong slot of the first plate in line 3 and the oblong slot of the second plate in line 6 of claim 1? Is there another oblong slot being claimed in each of the first and second plates? Suggestion to change “the first oblong slot” to read ---the oblong slot of the first plate--- and change “the second oblong slot” to read ---the oblong slot of the second plate---. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “wherein at least one of the first wing and the second wing comprises an aperture proximal the distal end of the second plate” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the aperture on at least one of the first or second wing is proximal the distal end of the first or second plate, since the first and second wings are part of the first plate and not part of the second plate. For purposes of examination, “of the second plate” is being interpreted as “of the first plate”.
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, 6-9, 11-16, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN114538207A) in view of Wanner (US1414237A).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 13, Zhang discloses a cable winder system, the system comprising: a first plate (10; Figures 1-4) having a slotted end (124) and a handling (“distal” claims 8 and 13) end (11) that is opposite to and wider than the slotted end (124), the slotted end (124) having an (“first” claims 8 and 13) oblong slot (121) having an open end and a terminated end (right end of 122) opposite the open end, the first oblong slot (121) extending from the open end thereof to the terminated end thereof along a central (“longitudinal first” claims 8 and 13) axis intermediate a first wing (upper portion of 11 and 12) and a second wing (lower portion of 11 and 12) of the first plate (10); a second plate (20) having a slotted end (224) and a handling (“distal” claims 8 and 13) end (21) that is opposite to and wider than the slotted end (224), the slotted end (224) having an (“second” claims 8 and 13) oblong slot (221) having an open end and a terminated end (left end of 222) opposite the open end, the second oblong slot (221) extending from the open end thereof to the terminated end thereof along the central (“longitudinal second” claims 8 and 13) axis intermediate a third wing (upper portion of 21 and 22) and a fourth wing (lower portion of 21 and 22) of the second plate (20); and wherein the first plate (10) and the second plate (20) are configured to couple along the central axis via the oblong slot (121) of the first plate (10) and the oblong slot (221) of the second plate (20; Figure 1); and wherein at least one of the first plate (10) and the second plate (20) comprises an aperture (32) for securing a cable, but fails to teach a first handle mounted on the first plate offset from and parallel to the central (“first” claims 8 and 13) axis and proximate the handling (“distal” claims 8 and 13) end thereof; and a second handle mounted on the second plate along and parallel to the central (“second” claims 8 and 13) axis and proximate the handling (“distal” claims 8 and 13) end thereof.
Wanner teaches a similar cable winder system and further teaches a first handle (5; Figures 1-3) mounted on the first plate (3, shown vertically) offset from and parallel to the central (“first” claims 8 and 13) axis and proximate the handling (“distal” claims 8 and 13) end (right side of first plate) thereof; and a second handle (1) mounted on the second plate (3, shown horizontally) along and parallel to the central (“second” claims 8 and 13) axis and proximate the handling (“distal” claims 8 and 13) end (left side of second plate) thereof. 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 Zhang to include the first and second handles as taught by Wanner in order to allow for manual operation of the cable winder.
Regarding claims 6, 11, and 14, Zhang discloses the above cable winder system, but fails to teach wherein at least one of the first handle and the second handle comprises a revolving handle.
Wanner teaches a similar cable winder system and further teaches wherein at least one of the first handle (5) and the second handle (1; 6; Figure 2) comprises a revolving handle. 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 Zhang to include the revolving handles as taught by Wanner in order to allow for manual operation of the cable winder.
Regarding claims 7, 12, and 15, Zhang discloses wherein a width of the first oblong slot (121) is equal to a depth of the second plate (20), and wherein a width of the second oblong slot (221) is equal to a depth of the first plate (10).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses wherein at least one of the first wing and the second wing comprises an aperture (113; 213; 23; Figures 1-4) proximal the distal end (11) of the [second plate] first plate (10).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses a method for winding a cable, the method comprising: (a) obtaining the cable winder system (Figures 1-4); (b) coupling the first plate (10) and the second plate (20); and (c) securing a first end of a cable to the cable winder system via the aperture (32) of the cable winder system (page 8, last 6 lines), but fails to teach (d) rotate the cable winder system by winding the first handle to collect wound cable on the cable winder system
Wanner teaches a similar cable winder system and further teaches (d) rotate the cable winder system by winding the first handle (5) to collect wound cable on 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 Zhang to include the first handle as taught by Wanner in order to allow for manual operation of the cable winder.
Regarding claims 20-21, Zhang discloses wherein the first wing and the second wing each have a respective linear outer edge (upper and lower edge of 12) parallel to the central axis and extending from the slotted end (124) of the first plate (10) toward the handling (“distal” claim 21) end (11) of the first plate (10); and the third wing and the fourth wing each have a respective linear outer edge (upper and lower edge of 22) parallel to the central axis and extending from the slotted end (224) of the second plate (20) toward the handling (“distal” claim 21) end (21) of the second plate (20).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang discloses wherein each said linear outer edge of the first wing and second wing extends longitudinally further from the slotted end (124) of the first plate (10) than the terminated end of the first oblong slot (121); each said linear outer edge of the third wing and fourth wing extends longitudinally further from the slotted end (224) of the second plate (20) than the terminated end of the second oblong slot (221).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Wanner, and in further view of Ye (CN115432513A).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 10, modified Zhang discloses the above cable winder system, but fails to teach wherein at least one of the first wing and the second wing comprises: a circularly shaped aperture at the handling end of the first plate; and an oval shaped aperture at the handling end of the first plate intermediate the circularly shaped aperture and the central axis;
wherein at least one of the third wing and the fourth wing comprises: a circularly shaped aperture at the handling end of the second plate; and an oval shaped aperture at the handling end of the second plate intermediate the circularly shaped aperture and the central axis.
Ye teaches a similar cable winder system and further teaches wherein at least one of the first wing and the second wing (111; 121; Figure 2) and at least one of the third wing and the fourth wing (111; 121) comprises: a circularly shaped aperture (108) at the handling end (upper portion of 10) of the first plate/second plate (10); and an oval shaped aperture (1301) at the handling end (upper portion of 10) of the first plate/second plate (10) intermediate the circularly shaped aperture (108) and the central axis. 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 Zhang to include the apertures 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 Zhang, in view of Wanner, and in further view of Joung (KR20180088203A).
Regarding claim 17, modified Zhang 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 Zhang 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 Zhang discloses the above cable winder system and further teaches (g) dis-engaging the first plate (10) and the second plate (20), 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 Zhang 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 Zhang, in view of Wanner, and in further view of Fries (US2537522A).
Regarding claim 19, modified Zhang 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 Zhang 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 with respect to claims 1, 8, 13, and 20-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 13, and 20-21, in pages 2-3, the applicant argued that the disclosure of Wanner, Ye, Joung, Fries, and other cited art fail to teach wherein the handling “distal” end of the first plate is wider than the slotted end thereof and wherein the handling “distal” end of the second plate is wider than the slotted end thereof and further argued that the disclosure of Wanner fails to teach wherein the first and second wings of the first plate and the third and fourth wings of the second plate have linear outer edges that are parallel to the central axis to allow for the slotted ends of the plates to be separable from the wound string.
The examiner agrees that the disclosure of Wanner, Ye, Joung, Fries, and other cited art fails to teach wherein the handling “distal” end of the first plate is wider than the slotted end thereof and wherein the handling “distal” end of the second plate is wider than the slotted end thereof and Wanner further fails to teach wherein the first and second wings of the first plate and the third and fourth wings of the second plate have linear outer edges that are parallel to the central axis to allow for the slotted ends of the plates to be separable from the wound string. However, the examiner construed that the disclosure of Zhang teaches the limitations as described above. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such amendment does not overcome the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 23-25 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein the terminated end of at least one of the first oblong slot and second oblong slot is wider than the open end thereof.
Zhang is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein at least one of the first oblong slot and second oblong slot has an open end and a terminated end opposite to the open end, but fails to teach wherein the terminated end of at least one of the first oblong slot and second oblong slot is wider than the open end thereof.
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.
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 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, VICTORIA 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights