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
The amendment filed March 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2 and 12-15 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-11 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 10 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to the claims and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 29th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnarsson (EP 3,476,786) in view of JP ‘873 (JP H0270873 U).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 4a from Gunnarsson
Regarding Claim 1, Gunnarsson, Figures 1a-6b and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a wire feeding barrel 100 comprising:
an outer barrel 10 for storing at least one wire (See Gunnarsson, Col. 3, Ln. 56-57);
an extension member 20 configured to extend from an opening 10a of the outer barrel 10 (See Figure 1 above; See Gunnarsson, Fig. 4b), wherein the extension member 20 comprises an inner tube 22 affixed to the outer barrel 10 and an extending member 24 configured to extend from the inner tube 22;
wherein the extension member 20 prevents the wire from looping as the wire is fed from the outer barrel 10 (See Gunnarsson, Col. 6, Ln. 56 - Col. 7, Ln. 4).
Gunnarsson teaches all the elements of the wire feeding barrel except for a wire exiting guide.
PNG
media_image2.png
376
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1 from JP '873
However, JP ‘873, Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 2 above, teaches a wire exiting guide 31 affixed at the opening 21a of the outer barrel 21 and configured to guide a wire 1 stored within the outer barrel 21 as the wire 1 is fed from the outer barrel 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gunnarsson with a wire exiting guide, as taught by JP ‘873, for the purpose of preventing wire loops from exiting the outer barrel over the extension member (i.e., constraining the wire exit path to a small annular opening between the extension member and the wire exiting guide) (See JP ‘873, Pg. 1, Ln. 20-22, Pg. 2, Ln. 23-25).
Regarding Claim 3, Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 are advanced above.
Gunnarsson further teaches wherein the inner tube 22 is included within a cavity 10b of the outer barrel 10 (See Figure 1 above).
Regarding Claim 4, Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 are advanced above.
Gunnarsson further teaches wherein the extending member 24 is configured to extend beyond the opening 10a of the outer barrel 10 on a top side of the outer barrel 10 (See Gunnarsson, Fig. 4b, Col. 5, Ln. 40-43).
Regarding Claim 5, Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 are advanced above.
Gunnarsson further teaches wherein the extending member 24 may be configured to retract entirely within the outer barrel 10 (See Gunnarsson, Fig. 2, Col. 2, Ln. 19-22).
Regarding Claim 6, Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 are advanced above.
Gunnarsson further teaches wherein the extending member 24 comprises a first portion and one or more additional portions telescopically engaged with the first portion (the guide member is a telescopic guide member 20 comprising at least a first tube section 22 and a second tube section 24 … the guide member 20 may comprise more than two tube sections depending on the desired height and configuration of the guide member 20; See Gunnarsson, Col. 4, Ln. 22-32).
Regarding Claim 7, Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 are advanced above.
JP ‘873 further teaches wherein the extending member 32 prevents the wire 1 stored within the outer barrel 21 from looping between the opening 21a of the outer barrel 21 and a ring 37 of the wire exiting guide 31 (See Figure 2 above; See JP ‘873, Pg. 2, Ln. 23-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gunnarsson with an extending member that prevents the wire stored within the outer barrel from looping between the opening of the outer barrel and a ring of the wire exiting guide, as taught by JP ‘873, for the purpose of preventing wire entanglement (See JP ‘873, Pg. 2, Ln. 23-25).
Regarding Claim 9, Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 are advanced above.
Gunnarsson further teaches wherein the extending member 24 is configured to be slidably movable with respect to the inner tube 22 between an extended position and a retracted position (See Gunnarsson, Fig. 2, 4a-4b, Col. 5, Ln. 56 - Col. 6, Ln. 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 are advanced above.
Gunnarsson further teaches wherein the extending member 24 may be stored within the outer barrel 10 when in the retracted position (See Gunnarsson, Fig. 2, Col. 2, Ln. 19-22).
Regarding Claim 11, Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 are advanced above.
Although Gunnarsson does not explicitly teach wherein the extending member consists of a corrugated cardboard composite material, Gunnarsson discloses “the guide member 20 may be constructed from any suitable material” (See Gunnarsson, Col. 4, Ln. 56-57), “the packaging container 100 and the guide member 20 may be constructed as a single unit” (See Gunnarsson, Col. 4, Ln. 37-39), and “the housing 10 may for example be constructed by metal, a plastic material, and/or cardboard” (See Gunnarsson, Col. 4, Ln. 13-15). Therefore, it is implied that cardboard or a corrugated cardboard composite could be a suitable material for the extending member and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an extending member made of a corrugated cardboard composite material for the purpose of increasing recyclability and environmentally friendliness (See Gunnarsson, Col. 1, Ln. 11-15).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnarsson (EP 3,476,786) in view of JP ‘873 (JP H0270873 U), as applied to claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 above, and further in view of Carlson (US 2015/0014468).
Regarding Claim 8, Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 are advanced above.
Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 teach all the elements of the wire feeding barrel except for sequential footage markers on the wire.
However, Carlson teaches wherein the wire 402 includes sequential footage markers (footage markers; See Carlson, Para. 0075, Ln. 6) configured to indicate a length of the wire pulled from the wire feeding barrel 406 (See Carlson, Para. 0075, Ln. 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 with sequential footage markers on the wire, as taught by Carlson, for the purpose of monitoring the amount of wire which has been removed from the wire feeding barrel and the amount of wire remaining in the wire feeding barrel (See Carlson, Para. 0075, Ln. 5-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 4-8, filed March 2nd, 2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to the Claims, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant has amended the claims. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejections. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the amended claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 (and subject matter from canceled claim 2 which has been incorporated into amended claim 1) 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.
Gunnarsson in view of JP ‘873 are utilized in the current rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Regarding the rejections of Claims 3-11, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 1 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, these claims are also rejected based on the new ground of rejection presented above.
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 TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is 571-272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7:30pm 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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights