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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second retention mechanism is a different type of retention mechanism than the first retention mechanism” as set forth in Claim 22; and the “removable top cover” as set forth in Claim 13, line 4, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (U.S. Patent No. 2,225,180) in view of Bevan et al (U.S. Patent No. 3,113,742), hereinafter “Bevan”, McConnell (U.S. Patent No. 3,926,383), Davis (U.S. Patent No. 4,161,298), and Briggs, IV et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0259941), hereinafter “Briggs”.
With respect to Claim 1, Olesen, Figures 1-2, teaches a spooler, comprising:
an engine (See Column 1, lines 30-39);
an arm 10 extending from and rotated via the engine (See Column 1, lines 30-39);
a barrel 14 supported by the arm such that the barrel rotates with the arm 10, the barrel 14 having a first end and a second end facing the housing, wherein the barrel and the arm are configured for rotating a first direction for winding and a second direction for unwinding; and
a first retention mechanism 17 disposed along a perimeter of the barrel 14.
Olesen teaches all the elements of spooler but it is unclear whether the engine is within a housing.
However, Bevan, Figures 1-6, teaches an engine 34 within a housing 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen with an engine within a housing, as taught by Bevan, for the purpose of protecting the engine from foreign substances.
Olesen in view of Bevan are advanced above.
Olesen in view of Bevan teach all the elements of the spooler except for
wherein the first retention mechanism removably secures a first end of a woundable material to a perimeter of a first end of the barrel as the barrel is rotated.
However, McConnell, Figures 1-3, teaches
wherein a first retention mechanism 24 removably secures a first end of a woundable material to a perimeter of a first end of the barrel 20,26 as the barrel is rotated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first retention mechanism of Olesen with the first retention mechanism taught by McConnell because such would allow the material to be slipped onto or off of the holder and a position in which is held firmly in place.
Olesen in view of Bevan, and McConnell teach all the elements of the spooler except for
a removable guiding element extending from the second end of the barrel for maintaining the woundable material relative to the barrel and distributing the woundable material along the barrel as the woundable material is wound around the barrel during rotation.
However, Davis teaches
a removable guiding element 32 (extending from the second end of a barrel 20 for maintaining the woundable material relative to the barrel and distributing the woundable material along the barrel 20 as the woundable material is wound around the barrel during rotation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen in view of Bevan, and McConnell with a removable guiding element, as taught by Davis, for the purpose of facilitating replacement of the guide strip when the strip has worn out.
Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, and Davis teach all the elements of the spooler except for wherein the woundable material is coaxial cable.
However, Briggs, Figures 1-8 and Paragraph [0018], lines 4-7, teaches a woundable material is coaxial cable 120.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen in view of Bevan with the ability to wind/unwind a coaxial cable, as taught by Briggs, because one of ordinary skill would have been expected to have routinely determine the best material for a particular use.
With respect to Claim 6, Olesen further teaches a second retention mechanism 17 (See Figure 2) disposed along the perimeter of the barrel.
With respect to Claim 7, Olesen further teaches wherein the second retention mechanism secures a second end of the woundable material 31 to the barrel 14.
With respect to Claim 10, Olesen further teaches a mounting mechanism 5 for mounting the spooler to a vehicle.
With respect to Claim 11, Bevan further teaches a speed regulation mechanism 18 for adjusting a rate of the rotation.
With respect to Claim 22, Olesen further teaches wherein the second retention 17 mechanism is a different type of retention mechanism than the first retention mechanism 24.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen in view of Bevan and McConnell as applied to Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, and 22 above, and further in view of Harrington et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0231723), hereinafter “Harrington”.
With respect to Claim 12, Olesen in view of Bevan are advanced above.
Olesen in view of Bevan teach all the elements of the spooler except for wherein the engine is battery operated.
However, Harrington, Figures 1-8, teaches wherein an engine 114 is battery operated (See Paragraph [0073], lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen in view of Bevan with a battery operated engine, as taught by Harrington, for the purpose of eliminating the need for a gas engine or an electric engine that may need to be plugged to an electric wall outlet.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, Davis, and Briggs as applied to Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, and 22 above, and further in view of Robertson et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0023520), hereinafter “Robertson”.
With respect to Claim 23, Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, Davis, and Briggs are advanced above.
Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, Davis, and Briggs teach all the elements of the spooler except for a mechanism for measuring the length of the woundable material comprising at least one of an optic device, a gyroscope, and a counter.
However, Robertson, Paragraph [0065], lines 9-12, teaches a mechanism comprising a counter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, Davis, and Briggs with mechanism for measuring, as taught by Robertson, for the purpose of measuring the amount of cable being spooled.
Claim(s) 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen (U.S. Patent No. 2,225,180) in view of Bevan et al (U.S. Patent No. 3,113,742), hereinafter “Bevan”, and McConnell (U.S. Patent No. 3,926,383) and Harrington et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0231723), hereinafter “Harrington”, and Dilks (U.S. Patent No. 5,522,582).
With respect to Claim 13, Olesen, Figures 1-2, teaches a spooler system, comprising:
a woundable material 31 having a first end and a second end; and
a spooler, the spooler comprising:
an engine (See Column 1, lines 30-39);
an arm 10 extending from and rotated via the engine (See Column 1, lines 30-39);
a barrel 14 supported by the arm 10 such that the barrel 14 rotates with the arm 10, wherein the barrel 14 and the arm are configured for rotating a first direction for winding and a second direction for unwinding;
a first retention mechanism 17 that removably secures the first end of a woundable material to the barrel 14; and
a mounting mechanism 5 for removably mounting the spooler to a vehicle.
Olesen teaches all the elements of spooler except for an enclosed housing having a removable top cover, an engine is within housing and accessible via the removable top cover.
However, Bevan, Figures 1-6, teaches an enclosed housing 66 having a removable top cover 10, an engine 34 is within housing 66 and accessible via the removable top cover 10; and a speed regulation mechanism 18 for adjusting a rate of the rotation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen with an engine within a housing, as taught by Bevan, for the purpose of protecting the engine from foreign substances.
Olesen in view of Bevan are advanced above.
Olesen in view of Bevan teach all the elements of the spooler except for
a first guiding element actuatable between a first configuration and a second configuration, wherein the first guiding element retains the woundable material on the barrel in the first configuration, wherein the woundable material is removable from the barrel when the first guiding element is in the second configuration.
However, McConnell, Figures 1-3, teaches
a first guiding element 24 for maintaining the woundable material relative to the barrel and distributing the woundable material along the barrel as the woundable material is wound around the barrel during rotation and being actuatable between a first configuration and a second configuration (See pivoting movement of element 24 in Figure 2), wherein the first guiding element 24 retains the woundable material on the barrel 20,26 in the first configuration, wherein the woundable material is removable from the barrel 20,26 when the first guiding element is in the second configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first retention mechanism of Olesen with the first retention mechanism taught by McConnell because such would allow the material to be slipped onto or off of the holder and a position in which is held firmly in place.
Olesen in view of Bevan and McConnell teach all the elements of the spooler except for wherein the engine is battery operated.
However, Harrington, Figures 1-8, teaches wherein an engine 114 is battery operated (See Paragraph [0073], lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen in view of Bevan with a battery operated engine, as taught by Harrington, for the purpose of eliminating the need for a gas engine or an electric engine that may need to be plugged to an electric wall outlet.
Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell and Harrington teach all the elements of the spooler except for the spooler being mounted to a vehicle.
However, Dilks, Figures 1-2, teaches a spooler 10 mounted to a vehicle 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen in view of Bevan and Harrington with the ability to mount the spooler to a vehicle, as taught by Dilks, for the purpose of allowing a user to use the spooler in remote locations.
With respect to Claim 21, McConnell further teaches wherein the first retention mechanism 24 removably secures a first end of a woundable material to a perimeter of a first end of the barrel as the barrel is rotated.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, Harrington, and Dilks as applied to Claims 13 and 21 above, and further in view of Briggs, IV et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0259941), hereinafter “Briggs”.
With respect to Claim 16, Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, Harrington, and Dilks are advanced above.
Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, Harrington, and Dilks teach all the elements of the spooler except for wherein the woundable material is coaxial cable.
However, Briggs, Figures 1-8 and Paragraph [0018], lines 4-7, teaches a woundable material is coaxial cable 120.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen in view of Bevan, Harrington, and Dilks with the ability to wind/unwind a coaxial cable, as taught by Briggs, because one of ordinary skill would have been expected to have routinely determine the best material for a particular use.
With respect to Claim 17, Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, Harrington, and Dilks are advanced above.
Olesen in view of Bevan, Harrington, and Dilks teach all the elements of the spooler except for a guiding element for maintaining the woundable material around the barrel.
However, Briggs, Figures 1-8, teaches a guiding element 354.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen in view of Bevan with a guiding element, as taught by Briggs, for the purpose of winding/unwinding the material in an orderly manner.
With respect to Claim 18, Briggs further teaches wherein the guiding element 354 is removable from the barrel.
With respect to Claim 19, Bevan further teaches wherein the arm and the barrel are rotated a first direction for winding and a second direction for unwinding. (See Column 2, lines 24-27 which states the engine is reversible).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, Harrington, and Dilks as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Haley et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0130144), hereinafter “Haley”.
With respect to Claim 15, Olesen in view of Bevan, Harrington, and Dilks are advanced above.
Olesen in view of Bevan, McConnell, Harrington, and Dilks teach all the elements of the spooler except for an emergency stop mechanism.
However, Haley, Paragraph [0116], line 6, and Paragraph [0117], lines 7-9, teaches the use of an emergency stop mechanism in a spooler 100.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Olesen in view of Bevan, Harrington, and Dilks with an emergency stop mechanism, as taught by Haley, for the purpose of quickly shutting down machinery or equipment in emergency situations when standard shutdown procedures are not feasible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 10-13, 15-19, and 21-23 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ARAUZ RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM MDT.
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.
/WILLIAM A. RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654