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 Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 11/17/2023 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 02/20/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 6-7, and 15 have been amended; No claims have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “It is respectfully submitted that even if Smoot and Goodbinder are considered analogous, the elements of the drive assembly of Goodbinder, e.g., the tensioning member 70, rail 78, or housing 80, cannot possibly be replaced with the roller 620 of Smoot. This is because these elements are not a roller. Effectively, if Smoot and Goodbinder were combined, the intended purpose or operability of one or both of Smoot and/or Goodbinder would be destroyed. Therefore, Smoot and Goodbinder cannot be combined to arrive at the drive assembly of amended independent claim 1.” – Applicant is making a different modification that that which was made in the action. Goodbinder has not been modified with the roller of Smoot, the assembly in Smoot, which is shown as supporting devices, has been modified to support the cable and device in Goodbinder. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify it to do so as Smoot states that its assembly can be used to support various other objects and devices in other applications. Furthermore the modification would not destroy the operation of Smoot as it is not obstructing the movement of the system on its sheet.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that Rygg and Outa are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Rygg and Outa are supporting assemblies that secure themselves via magnetism which are in the field of applicant’s endeavor.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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, 3-4, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smoot et al. (US 2010/0227527) in view of Goodbinder et al. (US 10,179,598).
In regards to Claim 1, Smoot discloses a drive assembly for an overhead cable management system for a device, the overhead cable management system having an overhead sheet (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 114) including a first surface (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 115) and a second surface (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 116) disposed opposite to the first surface and arranged facing a ground, the drive assembly comprising: a first roller (Smoot: Fig. 7; 720) adapted to be arranged and move on the first surface and including at least one first magnet (Smoot: Fig. 7; [0050] – disc magnet); and a second roller (Smoot: Fig. 7; 720; [0049] – wheel of follower vehicle) adapted to magnetically couple with the first roller and configured to be disposed underneath the overhead sheet, contacting the second surface and moving along the second surface, the second roller includes at least one second magnet adapted to facilitate the magnetic coupling of the second roller with the first roller (Smoot: Fig. 7; [0050] – disc magnet).
Smoot fails to explicitly disclose a cable of the device that is coupled with the second roller. However, Goodbinder teaches a cable (Goodbinder: Fig. 9A; 92) of a device (Goodbinder: Fig. 9A; 90) that is coupled with a drive assembly (Goodbinder: Fig. 9A; 78, 80).
Smoot and Goodbinder are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. minimizing tethered device line entanglement and obstruction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive assembly in Smoot to support the devices taught by Goodbinder, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternate electronic device for the system to support, thereby expanding its utility into additional application such as virtual reality, monitor based participant experiences, DJ configurations, karaoke, and audio application uses (Smoot: [0061]; Goodbinder: Col. 1, Ln. 49-52).
In regards to Claim 3, Smoot, as modified, teaches the drive assembly of claim 1, wherein the drive assembly includes a pair of stabilizers (Smoot: Fig. 7; 722, 726) coupled to the first roller and arranged on opposite sides of the first roller to stabilize the movement of the first roller on the first surface.
In regards to Claim 4, Smoot, as modified, teaches the drive assembly of claim 1, wherein the pair of stabilizers (Smoot: Fig. 7; 722, 726) includes a pair of wheels.
In regards to Claim 7, Smoot discloses an overhead cable management system for a device, comprising: an overhead sheet (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 114) having a first surface (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 115) and a second surface (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 116) disposed opposite to the first surface and arranged facing a ground; a first roller (Smoot: Fig. 7; 720) arranged on the first surface and configured to move on the first surface and including a first roller having at least one first magnet (Smoot: Fig. 7; [0050] – disc magnet); and a second roller (Smoot: Fig. 7; 720; [0049] – wheel of follower vehicle) magnetically coupled with the first roller and disposed underneath the overhead sheet, contacting the second surface and moving along the second surface, the second roller includes at least one second magnet (Smoot: Fig. 7; [0050] – disc magnet) magnetically coupling the second roller with the first roller.
Smoot fails to explicitly disclose a cable of the device that is coupled with the second roller. However, Goodbinder teaches a cable (Goodbinder: Fig. 9A; 92) of a device (Goodbinder: Fig. 9A; 90) that is coupled with a drive assembly (Goodbinder: Fig. 9A; 78, 80). [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 13, Smoot, as modified, teaches the overhead cable management system of claim 7, wherein the overhead sheet (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 114) includes a tarpaulin mat (Smoot: [0024]).
In regards to Claim 14, Smoot, as modified, teaches the overhead cable management system of claim 7 further including a pair of bumpers (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 118) extending along an outer edge of the overhead sheet (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 114), wherein a first bumper of the pair of bumpers extends upwardly of the overhead sheet and configured to retain the first roller on the first surface (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 115) of the overhead sheet, and a second bumper of the pair of bumpers extends downwardly of the overhead sheet and configured to retain the second roller engaged with the second surface (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 116) of the overhead sheet.
Claims 2, 5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smoot et al. (US 2010/0227527) in view of Goodbinder et al. (US 10,179,598) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Rygg (US 2021/0047016).
In regards to Claim 2, Smoot, as modified, teaches the drive assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first roller includes a housing and the at least one first magnet includes a plurality of first ring magnets arranged inside the housing such that central axes of the plurality of first ring magnets coincide with a rotational axis of the first roller.
However, Rygg teaches a first roller that includes an enclosure (Rygg: Fig. 8; 33; [0078] – casing) and the at least one first magnet includes a plurality of first ring magnets (Rygg: Fig. 8; 34) arranged inside the enclosure such that central axes of the plurality of first ring magnets coincide with a rotational axis of the second roller.
Smoot and Rygg are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. magnetic supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rollers in Smoot with the magnets and casing taught by Rygg, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a wheel structure that has a casing that surrounds the magnets and has a resilient element (Rygg: [0078]), thereby protecting the magnets and improving grip.
In regards to Claim 5, Smoot, as modified, teaches the drive assembly of claim 1, but fails to disclose the second roller includes an enclosure and the at least one second magnet includes a plurality of second ring magnets arranged inside the enclosure such that central axes of the plurality of second ring magnets coincide with a rotational axis of the second roller.
However, Rygg teaches a second roller that includes an enclosure (Rygg: Fig. 8; 33; [0078] – casing) and the at least one second magnet includes a plurality of second ring magnets (Rygg: Fig. 8; 34) arranged inside the enclosure such that central axes of the plurality of second ring magnets coincide with a rotational axis of the second roller. [Note: See the rejection of claim 2 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 8, Smoot, as modified, teaches the overhead cable management system of claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the first roller includes a housing and the at least one first magnet includes a plurality of first ring magnets arranged inside the housing and stacked such that central axes of the plurality of first ring magnets coincide with a rotational axis of the first roller.
However, Rygg teaches a first roller that includes a housing (Rygg: Fig. 8; 33; [0078] – casing) and the at least one first magnet includes a plurality of first ring magnets (Rygg: Fig. 8; 34) arranged inside the housing and stacked such that central axes of the plurality of first ring magnets coincide with a rotational axis of the first roller. [Note: See the rejection of claim 2 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Claim 9 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smoot et al. (US 2010/0227527) in view of Goodbinder et al. (US 10,179,598) and Rygg (US 2021/0047016) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Outa (US 2019/0152544).
In regards to Claim 6, Smoot, as modified, teaches the drive assembly of claim 5, wherein the drive assembly includes a chassis (Smoot: Fig. 7; 712, 714) to stabilize the second roller (Smoot: Fig. 7; 720; [0049] – of follower vehicle) on the second surface, wherein the second roller is arranged inside the chassis and the cable (Goodbinder: Fig. 9A; 92) of the device is coupled to the chassis.
Smoot fails to explicitly disclose a yoke coupled to the yoke to stabilize the second roller on the second surface, wherein the second roller is arranged inside the yoke. However, Outa teaches a second roller assembly (Outa: Fig. 3; 20) including a yoke (Outa: Fig. 3; 22) coupled to a second roller arranged inside the yoke and coupled to the yoke.
Smoot and Outa are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. magnetic supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rollers in Smoot with the yoke from Outa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a specific freely rotating structure that enables easy rotation of the system when it pivots about itself (Outa: [0078]), thereby ensuring optimized maneuverability.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smoot et al. (US 2010/0227527) in view of Goodbinder et al. (US 10,179,598) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Outa (US 2019/0152544).
In regards to Claim 10, Smoot, as modified, teaches the overhead cable management system of claim 7 further including a pair of stabilizers (Smoot: Fig. 7; 722, 726) coupled to the first roller and arranged on opposite sides of the first roller to stabilize the movement of the first roller on the first surface.
Smoot fails to explicitly disclose a yoke coupled to the yoke to stabilize the second roller on the second surface, wherein the second roller is arranged inside the yoke. However, Outa teaches a second roller assembly (Outa: Fig. 3; 20) including a yoke (Outa: Fig. 3; 22) and a second roller arranged inside the yoke and coupled to the yoke. [Note: See the rejection of claim 6 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 11, Smoot, as modified, teaches the overhead cable management system of claim 10, wherein the pair of stabilizers (Smoot: Fig. 7; 722, 726) includes a pair of wheels.
In regards to Claim 12, Smoot, as modified, teaches the overhead cable management system of claim 10 further including a retractable leash assembly (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 124, 134) having a leash (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 124) coupled to the yoke, wherein the cable of the device is attached to the retractable leash assembly.
Claims 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smoot et al. (US 2010/0227527) in view of Outa (US 2019/0152544) and Goodbinder et al. (US 10,179,598).
In regards to Claim 15, Smoot discloses a virtual reality system, comprising: a frame having a plurality of pillars (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 112) extending vertically from a ground; an overhead sheet (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 114) supported on the plurality of pillars and disposed at a vertical distance from the ground defining a working space, the overhead sheet having a first surface (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 115) and a second surface (Smoot: Fig. 1-2; 116) disposed opposite to the first surface and arranged facing the ground; a first roller assembly (Smoot: Fig. 7; 720, 722, 726) arranged on the first surface and configured to move on the first surface and including a first roller (Smoot: Fig. 7; 720) having at least one first magnet, and a pair of stabilizers (Smoot: Fig. 7; 722, 726) attached to the first roller and arranged spaced apart and opposite to each other, wherein the pair of stabilizers stabilize the movement of the first roller assembly on the first surface; and a second roller assembly (Smoot: Fig. 7; 720, 722, 726; [0049] – wheels of follower vehicle) magnetically coupled with the first roller assembly and disposed underneath the overhead sheet, contacting the second surface and moving along the second surface, the second roller assembly including a chassis (Smoot: Fig. 7; 712, 714), and a second roller arranged inside the chassis and coupled to the chassis, the second roller includes at least one second magnet (Smoot: Fig. 7; [0050] – disc magnet) magnetically coupling the second roller assembly with the first roller assembly, wherein the cable is coupled to the chassis of the second roller assembly.
Smoot fails to explicitly disclose the second roller assembly including a yoke and a second roller arranged inside the chassis and coupled to the chassis. However, Outa teaches a second roller assembly (Outa: Fig. 3; 20) including a yoke (Outa: Fig. 3; 22) and a second roller arranged inside the yoke and coupled to the yoke. [Note: See the rejection of claim 6 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Furthermore, Smoot fails to disclose a virtual reality headset; at least one cable attached to the virtual reality headset and configured to facilitate an operation of the virtual reality headset; and wherein the cable is coupled to the yoke of the second roller assembly. However, Goodbinder teaches a virtual reality headset; at least one cable attached to the virtual reality headset and configured to facilitate an operation of the virtual reality headset; wherein the cable is coupled to a drive assembly (Goodbinder: Fig. 9A; 78, 80). [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Claim 18 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
Claim 19 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 12.
Claim 20 is rejected, as set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smoot et al. (US 2010/0227527) in view of Outa (US 2019/0152544) and Goodbinder et al. (US 10,179,598) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Rygg (US 2021/0047016).
In regards to Claim 16, Smoot, as modified, teaches the virtual reality system of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the first roller includes a housing and the at least one first magnet includes a plurality of first ring magnets arranged inside the housing, and the plurality of first ring magnets is stacked such that central axes of the plurality of first ring magnets coincide with a rotational axis of the first roller.
However, Rygg teaches a first roller that includes a housing (Rygg: Fig. 8; 33; [0078] – casing) and the at least one first magnet includes a plurality of first ring magnets (Rygg: Fig. 8; 34) arranged inside the housing, and the plurality of first ring magnets is stacked such that central axes of the plurality of first ring magnets coincide with a rotational axis of the first roller. [Note: See the rejection of claim 2 for motivation and/or rationale.]
In regards to Claim 17, Smoot, as modified, teaches the virtual reality system of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the second roller includes an enclosure and the at least one second magnet includes a plurality of second ring magnets arranged inside the enclosure, wherein, the plurality of second ring magnets is stacked such that central axes of the plurality of second ring magnets coincide with a rotational axis of the second roller.
However, Rygg teaches a second roller that includes an enclosure (Rygg: Fig. 8; 33; [0078] – casing) and the at least one second magnet includes a plurality of second ring magnets (Rygg: Fig. 8; 34) arranged inside the enclosure, wherein, the plurality of second ring magnets is stacked such that central axes of the plurality of second ring magnets coincide with a rotational axis of the second roller. [Note: See the rejection of claim 2 for motivation and/or rationale.]
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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights