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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 25th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims received on July 25th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended and claims 2, 9 and 15 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed July 25th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 8, and 14 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hofschulte et al. (US 2022/0281338 A1).
Applicant has amended the claims to specifically include the limitation of “the plurality of drive wheels is non-orbiting relative to the driver system during extension and retraction of the cable bundle” and for that reason the primary prior art reference of Benson (US 2019/0055105 A1) fails to provide that limitation as it relies on such a function for actuation. However, Hofschulte et al. discloses a charging robot comprising a cable management drive system with a storage container, cable bundle and a drive mechanism. Furthermore, the teachings of Scott (US 4,2129421 A) and Herrmann et al. (US 2010/0150317 A1) provide teachings that one skilled in the art may incorporate into the disclosed invention of Hofschulte et al..
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofschulte et al. (US 2022/0281338 A1) and further in view of Scott (US 4,2129421 A) and Herrmann et al. (US 2010/0150317 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14, Hofschulte et al. discloses a cable management drive system for efficiently extending and retracting cable bundles (Fig. 1 and 4A-B; Pg. 5-6. ¶71, second receiving compartment of charging robot 10), comprising:
a storage container (Fig. 4A; Pg. 5-6, ¶71, receiving compartment 26);
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 (Fig. 1 and 4A-B; Pg. 5-6. ¶71, cable 40 of charging robot 10);
a plurality of drive wheels disposed below a drive mechanism, wherein the plurality of drive wheels is positioned on opposite sides of the 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 (Fig. 4A-4B; Pg. 6, ¶¶72-73, pulleys 68, 70);
a driver system disposed above the plurality of drive wheels and coupled to the drive mechanism (Fig. 4A-4B; Pg. 6, ¶¶72-73, retracting device 67), 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 (Pg. 6, ¶73); and
the plurality of drive wheels is non-orbiting relative to the driver system during extension and retraction of the cable bundle (Fig. 4A-4B; Pg. 6, ¶¶72-73).
Hofschulte et al. discloses the drawing and withdrawing of a cable bundle but does not disclose the bundle having one or more long tubular multi-axis cable carriers. However, Herrmann et al. teaches a cable bundle comprising one or more long tubular multi-axis cable carriers (Pg. 2, ¶27, cable hose 9 corresponding to a long tubular multi-axis cable carrier). Herrmann et al. provides a device for guiding a long tubular multi-axis cable carrier and Hofschulte et al. discloses an adjustable arrangement of the pulley mechanism (Pg. 6, ¶77), therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the drive system of Hofschulte et al. to be able to withdraw and deposit a cable bundle having a long tubular multi-axis cable carrier as it is known in the art that incorporating such a carrier is essential for protecting the cables for heavy machinery.
Hofschulte et al. further fails to disclose the drive system utilizing a drive belt or chain, and a plurality of release levers. However, Scott teaches the drive mechanism comprises a drive belt or a drive chain mechanically coupling the driver system to the plurality of drive wheels (Fig. 5-6; Col. 4, Ln. 1-11, belts 128, 130), and a release lever adjacent to the plurality of drive wheels and configured to dynamically deactivate the plurality of drive wheels to allow manual operation of the driver system (Fig. 1-3; Col. 3, Ln. 54-68, lever 80). 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 belt drive assembly to the plurality of drive wheels as it provides a smoother transition between drawing and with drawing. Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to one having 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 Scott 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 4, 11, and 16, Hofschulte et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a manual crank. However, Scott teaches wherein the driver system comprises a manual crank mechanism (Fig. 1-6; Col. 3, Ln. 54-68, hand crank 108). 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.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 17, Hofschulte et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a motor. However, Scott teaches wherein the driver system comprises a motor (Col. 8, Ln. 6-9). 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 motor to the driver system, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding claims 6, and 18, Hofschulte et al. 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 (Fig. 4A; Pg. 5-6, ¶71, receiving compartment 26).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Hofschulte et al. 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 (Fig. 4A; Pg. 5-6, ¶71, receiving compartment 26).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Hofschulte et al. discloses wherein the storage container is sized based on a length of the cable bundle (Pg. 5-6, ¶71, the cable length being determined to fit within the receiving compartment 26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references refer to cable management assemblies which incorporate the same or similar functionality and mechanisms tot that of the claimed invention.
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 through Thursday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST and a flexed schedule on Fridays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights