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
Amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims received on November 26th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended, claims 3 and 10 have been canceled. Objections to the specification, drawings, and claims filed on August 27th, 2025 have been withdrawn. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections filed on August 27th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 14 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.
Applicant argues regarding amended claims 1, 8, and 14 that the clarification of the location of the plurality of drive wheels and drive system is sufficient to overcome the rejection presented in the previous office action. However, the examiner emphasizes that Benson discloses friction wheel 336 and pinch wheel 333A (corresponding to drive wheels as they drive the cable) being disposed below or at the lower end of the spooling mechanism 330 (corresponding to a drive mechanism as it is the entire mechanism which causes the cable to move to and from the container). Furthermore, Benson discloses armature 300, connecting rod 312, sleeve 313, motor drive shaft 314, and motor 400 (corresponding to a driver system as powers the plurality of drive wheels and the drive mechanism) being disposed above said friction wheel 336 and pinch wheel 333A. While not all the components are disposed above the friction wheel 336 and pinch wheel 333A, it should be noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the driver system above the drive wheels, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this instance, doing so would provide efficient orientation of the assembly to store the cable.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that none of the prior art references teach a plurality of release levers adjacent to the drive wheels, in order to best incorporate applicant’s new limitations, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kapczynski (US 10,259,126 B1) and Solomon (US 8,684,178 B1). The teachings of Kapczynski’s latch handles 270 incorporate such an element. Furthermore, the Office Action also utilizes the teachings of Solomon’s manual crank to depict the obviousness of the element.
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) 1-2, 5-9, 12-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson (US 2019/0055105 A1) in view of Kapczynski (US 10,259,126 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14, Benson discloses a cable management drive system for efficiently extending and retracting cable bundles (Pg. 1, ¶1), comprising:
a cable management drive system (Pg. 1, ¶16, tethered vehicle system 10), comprising:
a storage container (Pg. 2, ¶20, storage basked 210);
a cable bundle configured to provide one or more power, data, or utility signals to an industrial robot configured to perform a service, wherein the cable bundle is further configured to couple to the industrial robot (Pgs. 1-2, ¶16, tethered cable 102 corresponding to cable bundle, & vehicle 100 corresponds to industrial robot as it is relies on the signals sent from the tethered cable 102 to function as stated in Pg. 1, ¶16);
a plurality of drive wheels (Fig. 5a, friction wheel 336, pinch wheel 333A) disposed below a drive mechanism (Fig. 5a; Pg.3, ¶23, spooling mechanism 330) wherein the plurality of drive wheels is positioned on opposite sides of the cable bundle (Fig. 5a, pinion gear 332A) and configured to cause the cable bundle to be extended from the storage container to facilitate a deployment of the industrial robot to perform the service and to be retracted into the storage container to facilitate a withdrawal of the industrial robot upon performance of the service (Pg. 3, ¶23);
a driver system disposed above the plurality of drive wheels and coupled to the drive mechanism, wherein the driver system is configured to power the plurality of drive wheels and the drive mechanism to cause the cable bundle to be extended and retracted (Figs. 4; Pg. 3, ¶23, armature 300, connecting rod 312, sleeve 313, motor drive shaft 314, and motor 400 corresponding to a driver system); and
a control system configured to control an operation of the driver system (Pg. 2, ¶19, control module 105), but fails to disclose a plurality of release levers for deactivating the plurality of wheels. However, Kapczynski teaches further comprising a release lever configured to dynamically deactivate the plurality of drive wheels (Fig. 2B; Col. 6, Ln. 33-42, latch handle 270; & Figs. 3A-D; Col. 7, Ln. 15-35, latch handle 370) to allow manual operation of the driver system (Col. 7, Ln. 36-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a release lever to deactivate the driving wheels to provide a means to manually dispense or draw in the cable.
While Kapczynski does not mention a plurality of levers it would have still been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plurality of levers for deactivating the plurality drive wheels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It is understood that, while having one lever to control the deactivation the plurality of drive wheels is efficient, it may require a complex mechanism, thus there is a need for having a plurality of levers for the plurality of drive wheels.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15, Benson discloses wherein the cable bundle comprises one or more long tubular multi-axis cable carriers (Pg. 3, ¶23, cable guide 334A).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 17, Benson discloses wherein the driver system comprises a motor (Pg. 3, ¶23, motor 400).
Regarding claims 6, and 18, Benson discloses further comprising a storage container, wherein the cable bundle is configured to extend from the storage container and to retract into the storage container (Pg. 2, ¶20, storage basked 210).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Benson discloses wherein the industrial robot comprises a mobile industrial robot, the system further comprising a storage container coupled to the mobile industrial robot by way of the cable bundle, wherein the storage container encloses the cable management drive system (Pgs. 1-2, ¶16).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Benson discloses wherein the storage container is sized based on a length of the cable bundle (Pg. 1, ¶3), and wherein the cable management drive system is sized based on a diameter of the cable bundle (Pg. 3, ¶23, the cable guides having an inside diameter large enough to allow a tether cable to easily pass through).
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson (US 2019/0055105 A1), in view of Kapczynski (US 10,259,126 B1), and in further view of Solomon (US 8,684,178 B1).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 16, Benson fails to discloses a manual crank mechanism. However, Solomon teaches wherein the driver system comprises a manual crank mechanism (Figs. 2C & 2F, element 11; Col. 3, Ln. 65-67; Col. 4, Ln. 1-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a manual crank mechanism to the cable management drive to provide a manual winding means in case of motor malfunction.
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 ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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 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.
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights