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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 1-18 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.
In regards to claim 1, the limitation “a drum” recited in line 4 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if it is the same as or different from the previously recited “a drum” in line 3. Claims 2-18 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected independent claim 1.
In regards to claim 4, the limitation “a wire” recited in line 1 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if it is the same as or different from the previously recited “a wire” in line 5 of claim 1 which claim 4 depends from. Claims 5-14 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the external power source" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao (US 7109594 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Liao discloses a self-retractable wire reel, comprising:
a housing (1) (Fig. 2) having a first bracket (10) removably joined with a second bracket (11) spaced at an interval (as seen in Fig. 15, there is a line of connection between the two brackets where there is space at a small interval between the two brackets);
wherein a drum (2) (Fig. 2) is positioned (as seen in Fig. 2) between the first and second brackets;
a drum (2) including a base (the base plate of drum 2 as seen in Fig. 2) having a sidewall (21, 22) extend around a perimeter thereof, wherein the sidewall forms an inner spool area (the interior of 21, 22) adapted to receive a wire (3);
wherein the drum is adapted to rotate independently (col. 1, lines 51-54) from the first and second brackets;
wherein the drum comprises an outer spool area (the outer surface of 21, 22) formed by an exterior side of the sidewall,
wherein the outer spool area is adapted to receive the wire therearound (as seen in Fig. 4), wherein
the wire passes through a drum aperture (24) (as seen in Fig. 6) from the inner spool area;
a spring (6) (Fig. 2) engaged with the drum such that the drum is biased in a first direction (col. 2, lines 55-57).
In regards to claim 2, Liao discloses the self-retractable wire reel of claim 1, wherein the drum is adapted to transition from a retracted configuration (as seen in Fig. 4) to an extended configuration (as seen in Fig. 6), wherein the retraction configuration the drum is rotated in the first direction (the direction being opposite of the one seen in Fig. 6 so that the cable is pulled back into the housing) and an outfeed section of the wire extending from the drum is positioned towards the housing.
In regards to claim 3, Liao discloses the self-retractable wire reel of claim 2, wherein the extended configuration the drum is rotated in a second direction (as seen in Fig. 6) such that the outfeed section of the wire is moved away from the housing (as seen by the arrow of directional movement for the cable leaving the housing).
In regards to claim 4, Liao discloses the self-retractable wire reel of claim 3, further comprising a wire coiled about the sidewall (as seen in Fig. 6).
In regards to claim 16, Liao discloses the self-retractable wire reel of claim 1, wherein the wire comprises an electrical contact at a distal end thereof (col. 3, lines 8-14).
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) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 7109594 B2).
In regards to claim 15, Liao teaches the self-retractable wire reel of claim 1, wherein an exterior side of the housing
Liao does not teach a logo receiving area adapted to receive an advertisement member thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a logo receiving area adapted to receive an advertisement member thereon with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing marketing capabilities, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). See MPEP § 2144.04(I).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 7109594 B2) in view of Eden (US 11335215 B2).
In regards to claim 17, Liao teaches the self-retractable wire reel of claim 16, further comprising a sign unit with a light source, wherein the sign unit is adapted to secure to and slide along a rail.
Liao does not teach a sign unit with a light source, wherein the sign unit is adapted to secure to and slide along a rail.
Eden teaches a sign unit (100) (Fig. 2) with a light source (102), wherein the sign unit is adapted to secure to and slide along a rail (col. 1, lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the self-retractable wire reel of Liao to include a sign unit with a light source as taught by Eden with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling advertisements to be legible regardless of the ambient illumination (see Eden, col. 1, lines 10-13).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 7109594 B2) in view of Eden (US 11335215 B2) and Kurmlavage (US 20210056876 A1).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Liao as modified by Eden above teaches the self-retractable wire reel of claim 17, wherein the sign unit (100) (Eden, Fig. 2) and rail (Eden, col. 1, lines 55-60) are positioned
Liao does not teach a cooking apparatus.
Kurmlavage teaches a cooking apparatus (14) with a sign unit (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the self-retractable wire reel of Liao to include utilizing a cooking apparatus as taught by Kurmlavage with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing food identifying signage to increase food safety (see Kurmlavage, para. [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-14 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:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 5. While Liao teaches the self-retractable wire reel of claim 4, wherein the inner spool area is configured to accumulate a length of the wire (as seen in Fig. 4, the inner spool area contains wire spooling), such that as the drum transitions to the extended configuration (as seen in Fig. 6), the wire from the inner spool area is pulled through the drum aperture (24)
Liao does not teach wherein the wire from the inner spool area is pulled through the drum aperture without applying a tensioning force on the wire.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the self-retractable wire reel of Liao to include not applying a tensioning force when pulling the wire through the drum aperture. The Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the self-retractable wheel of Liao to meet the claimed limitation.
Thus, claim 5 is non-obvious in view of the prior art above, however, claim 5 is still subject to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above and objected to due to being dependent on a rejected base claim. Claims 6-14 are also allowable due to dependence upon claim 5 but are also still subject to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above and are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
권남원 (KR 102144077 B1) discloses a cable drum and sludge level meter using the same.
Theiss (KR 20210145798 A) discloses a compact winding device for flexible lines.
김태호 (KR 20210000689 U) discloses a ground connection tool of power transmission lines.
Kiel (DE 102020200003 B3) discloses a cable drum for an electrically powered or drivable motor vehicle.
Ge (CN 105905672 A) discloses a charging wire coiling device.
Iwami (US 20140339352 A1) discloses a cable housing device.
Keimaki (CN 104126258 A) discloses a flat cable winding device.
Long (CN 202967759 U) discloses a winding device.
Bauck (WO 2011059710 A1) discloses a hose reel with a spring to bias the drum.
Su (CN 201808971 U) discloses an electric wire coiler structure.
Miao (CN 201562850 U) discloses a winding device for an information socket.
Sheng-Hsin (US 5796047 A) discloses an electrical box for connection between a handset an da telephone base.
Lenz (US 5453585 A) discloses a cable retraction system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights