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 claims received on March 19th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 4-6, 9, 11-13, and 16-18 have been amended and claims 1-3, 8, 10, and 15 have been canceled. The objections filed on December 19th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed March 19th, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 4-7 and 16-19 under 3.5. U.S.C. § 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Wellman (US 3,586,256 A) and in further view of Robertson (US 2019/0023520 A1).
Claim 11 was previously indicated as including allowable subject matter. More specifically, in the previous Office Actions, it was determined that the limitation of the dolly wherein the plurality of fasteners are configured to confine a sling between walls of the one or more sling guides. However, upon further review, it is determined that the slinge guides of Wellman are, depicted as the arrangements of motor 29I securing cable 29K alongside securing element 29G found in figures 3-4, is understood to confine the sling between walls of the guide element. The Office Action has been updated below.
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 9, 11, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman (US 3,586,256 A), in view of Robertson (US 2019/0023520 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Wellman discloses a dolly for unrolling a cable reel supported by an aircraft capable of hovering (Col. 1, Ln. 4-15), comprising:
a main frame (Figs. 2-3; Col. 1, Ln. 67-69, base frame 20A-D),
a cable reel (Fig. 1, reel 21)
a tether (Fig. 9; Col. 2, Ln. 41-50, struts 32E-F)
a fairlead frame (Fig. 9; Col. 2, Ln. 41-50, struts 32A-32D), and
a reel shaft (Fig. 3; Col. 2, Ln. 10-14, shaft 30E);
wherein the main frame is configured to hold the reel shaft (Col. 2, Ln. 3-14);
wherein the main frame is configured to hold the cable reel (Col. 2, Ln. 3-14);
wherein the fairlead frame is attached to the main frame (Figs. 9-10; Col. 2, Ln. 41-50);
wherein the fairlead frame is configured to guide a cable away from the dolly (Col. 2, Ln. 41-50);
wherein the main frame comprises one or more sling guides for securing the sling to the main frame (Fig. 3, motor 29I securing cable 29K to the frame & Fig. 4 further depicting securing element 29G);
wherein the one or more sling guides comprise a plurality of fasteners; and
wherein the plurality of fasteners are configured to confine a sling between walls of the one or more sling guides (Fig. 3, motor 29I & Fig. 4 further depicting securing element 29G securing cable 29K to the frame), but fails to disclose wherein the tether is pivotally attached to the fairlead.
However, Robertson teaches wherein the fairlead frame is pivotably attached to the main frame, wherein the fairlead frame is configured to have controlled vertical movement with respect to the main frame, and wherein the tether is configured to limit a pivot range between the main frame and the fairlead frame (Pg. 3, ¶¶49 & 52, pivoting bar 328 corresponding to the tether, and roller bars 326 corresponding to a fairlead frame). Both Wellman and Robertson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a conductor reel payout dolly. 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 fairlead frame to be pivotally attached to the main frame in order to give the cable slack when being wound or unwound to prevent any pinching as the cable reel is rotating.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Wellman discloses wherein the main frame further includes one or more journal plates configured to support a journal, wherein the one or more journal plates include a journal configured to support the reel shaft (Col. 1, Ln. 67-75 & Col. 2, Ln. 3-14).
Regarding claim 14, Wellman discloses wherein the journal includes one or more fasteners configured to prevent rotation of the reel shaft (Col. 1, Ln. 67-75 & Col. 2, Ln. 3-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 16-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 is allowable because it includes the limitation of a dolly comprising a brake belt having more than one or more detachable weights, and more specifically wherein the weights are configured to increase friction on the cable reel, in combination with the other elements recited in claim 5. Dependent claims 4 and 6-7 are also allowable as they depend on allowed claim 5.
Claim 16 is allowable because it includes the limitation of a dolly wherein each of the one or more locking hubs is configured to secure the tether sling to the reel shaft, in combination with the other elements recited in claim 16. Dependent claims 17-18 are also allowable as they depend on allowed claim 16.
Claim 19 is allowable because it includes the limitation of a dolly comprising a brake belt having more than one or more weights, and more specifically wherein the one or more weights are configured to increase friction of the break belt against the cable reel to limit a rotation of the cable reel about the reel shaft, in combination with the other elements recited in claim 19.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights