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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “164” has been used to designate both “pivots” and “compression blocks” within Figs.7 and 8.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “105a” within Figs. 2, 5 and 11 and “113” within Fig.12. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Within Pg.12, line 6: “lift-stop limit switch 120” should be “lift-stop limit switch “109”.
Within the last line of Pg. 20 there appears to be a translation error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Within lines 2-3, “adjusting holes are formed to be staggered manner in multiple directions” should be “adjusting holes are formed to be staggered in multiple directions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 101033808 B1).
Regarding claim 1: Kim discloses an elevating cable reel of single-layer winding type comprising; a main body installed on a ceiling or wall or a support of a predetermined shape and having a storage space therein (Fig.2); a drum rotatably accommodated inside the main body (50; Fig.2), and having a hollow therein (inside of 50; Fig.3), and a power cable being wound around a circumferential surface thereof (7; Fig.7); a driving motor disposed in the hollow to provide forward/reverse rotational force to the drum (10; Fig.7); a slip ring installed on a part of the drum to receive commercial power in a contact manner (33; Fig.3); and an elevating body suspended from a lower end of the power cable and installed to be elevated up and down (Fig.3 and see attached EPO translation Pg.11, lines 18-19); wherein the power cable is wound in a single layer on the circumferential surface of the drum to prevent heat generation due to eddy current (Fig.7).
Regarding claim 7: Kim discloses the elevating cable reel of single-layer winding type according to claim 1, wherein the elevating cable reel of single-layer winding type comprises at least one guide roll fixed to an inner bottom surface of the main body and disposed below the drum to guide the power cable unwound from the drum to below of the main body (8; Fig.1).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Komiyama et al. (JP H06153364 A).
Regarding claim 2: Kim teaches an elevating cable reel (Fig.2). Kim does not teach wherein a final turn of the power cable is aligned with a center of the main body in a state in which the power cable is completely wound around the drum, wherein a center of the elevating body coincides with the center of the main body in a state in which the elevation of the elevating body is completed by winding of the power cable and coupled to a lower part of the main body.
However, Komiyama teaches wherein a final turn of the power cable is aligned with a center of the main body in a state in which the power cable is completely wound around the drum (22; Fig.5 and 7), wherein a center of the elevating body (5; Fig.7) coincides with the center of the main body (3; Fig.7) in a state in which the elevation of the elevating body is completed by winding of the power cable and coupled to a lower part of the main body (Fig.7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elevating cable reel of Kim with the winding orientation of the drum to provide a stable movement and lower friction of the elevating body and power cable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Komiyama and Ewing et al. (US 5280880 A).
Regarding claim 3: Kim teaches an elevating cable reel (Fig.2). Kim does not teach wherein a guide groove accommodating a part of an outer circumferential surface of the power cable is formed on the circumferential surface of the drum to spirally extend along a longitudinal direction of the drum so as to wind the power cable at a constant pitch.
However, Ewing teaches wherein a guide groove accommodating a part of an outer circumferential surface of the power cable is formed on the circumferential surface of the drum to spirally extend along a longitudinal direction of the drum so as to wind the power cable at a constant pitch (20; Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elevating cable reel of Kim with guide grooves for the power cable as in Ewing to provide a dedicated cable groove for uniform cable winding to prevent service disruptions and allow for an even single layer winding with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4: Kim teaches an elevating cable reel (Fig.2). Kim does not specifically teach wherein at least one location of the guide groove is formed with a position adjusting hole that communicates with the hollow of the drum and serves as a starting point for winding the power cable around the circumferential surface of the drum.
However, Ewing teaches wherein at least one location of the guide groove is formed with a position adjusting hole that communicates with the hollow of the drum and serves as a starting point for winding the power cable around the circumferential surface of the drum (Col.4, lines 55-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elevating cable reel of Kim with the position adjusting hole of Ewing to provide a set access point of the power cable from the hollow of the drum dependent upon the desired length and orientation of the power cable for efficient reel operation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5: : Kim teaches an elevating cable reel (Fig.2). Kim does not teach wherein in order to select a starting point of winding on the circumferential surface of the drum in response to an entire length of the power cable, a plurality of position adjusting holes are alternately formed for the guide grooves that are repeated in the longitudinal direction of the drum. However, Ewing teaches the use of a starting point of winding on the circumferential surface of the drum in response to an entire length of the power cable, and a position adjusting hole formed for the guide grooves on the drum (Col.4, lines 55-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elevating cable reel of Kim with the position adjusting hole of Ewing to provide a position adjusting hole for the power cable access from the hollow of the drum dependent upon the desired length and orientation of the power cable for efficient reel operation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kim in view of Ewing teaches the claimed invention except for a plurality of position adjusting holes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple position adjusting holes along the drum for selecting a starting point for the power cable, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Komiyama and Tracey et al. (US 20130032654 A1).
Regarding claim 8: Kim teaches the elevating cable reel of single-layer winding type according to claim 1, wherein the elevating cable reel of single-layer winding type further comprises a microcomputer (80; Fig.3). Kim does not teach a microcomputer that detects a tension applied to the power cable to detect a no-load state or an overload state to automatically stop an operation of the driving motor.
However, Tracey teaches a microcomputer that detects a tension applied to the power cable to detect a no-load state or an overload state to automatically stop an operation of the driving motor (Para.[0056], lines 6-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elevating cable reel of Kim with a microcomputer that stops the driving motor based on power cable tension to prevent component damage and failure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9: Kim does not teach wherein the microcomputer further performs a slow section control to prevent an impact between the main body and the drum by reducing a rotational speed of the drum before the elevating body couples with the main body.
However, Tracey teaches wherein the microcomputer further performs a slow section control to prevent an impact between the main body and the drum by reducing a rotational speed of the drum before the elevating body couples with the main body (Para.[0056], lines 14-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elevating cable reel of Kim with the microcontroller slowing the drum speed before the elevating body couples with the main body as in Tracey to prevent component damage and failure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10: Kim further teaches the elevating cable reel of single-layer winding type according to claim 8, wherein the microcomputer further performs an automatic stop control to stop an operation of the driving motor by detecting a predetermined height when the elevating body descends (Pg.15, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 11: Kim does not teach wherein the elevating body is an outlet provided with at least one plug insertion hole.
However, Tracey teaches wherein the elevating body is an outlet provided with at least one plug insertion hole (650; Fig.11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elevating cable reel of Kim with the elevating body outlet to efficiently provide power to consumers from above within areas having space restrictions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12: Kim does not teach wherein the elevating cable reel of single-layer winding type further comprises a storage unit installed in at least one side of the elevating body to optionally open an internal storage space thereof.
However, Tracey teaches a storage unit installed in at least one side of the elevating body to optionally open an internal storage space thereof (end portion 24 storing interface 27; Fig.11) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elevating body to include a storage space to efficiently store any needed components desired by the consumer with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tracey and Moriyama (JP 2011223699 A).
Regarding claim 14: Kim teaches the elevating cable reel of single-layer winding type according to claim 11, wherein a cable hole into which the power cable can be inserted is formed at a center of the elevating body, fixed to the elevating body (apparent from Fig.1 and Fig.5). Kim does not teach wherein a plurality of compression blocks are disposed around the cable hole to surround the power cable from all sides, and the power cable is pressed by the compression blocks being pushed in the direction of the power cable by bolts selectively inserted to contact with an outer surface of the compression blocks.
However, Moriyama teaches wherein a plurality of compression blocks (120; Fig.1) are disposed around the cable hole to surround the power cable from all sides (CBL; Fig.1) and the power cable is pressed by the compression blocks being pushed in the direction of the power cable by bolts selectively inserted to contact with an outer surface of the compression blocks (13; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elevating cable reel of Kim with the compression blocks of Moriyama to provide a solid fixing point of the power cable to prevent cable damage with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claims 6, 13 and 15.
More specifically, the prior art fails to teach the position adjusting holes being formed to be staggered manner in multiple directions with respect to a rotation axis of the drum as claimed within claim 6; a multi-purpose shelf connected to both side surfaces of the elevating body by pivots to be disposed below the elevating body, and wherein the multi-purpose shelf has a storage surface on an upper surface thereof where an object can be placed as claimed within claim 13; and a rotating game device comprising a rotating plate configured to be rotated on one surface of the elevating main body, wherein the rotating plate has betting areas distinguished from each other and partitioned in the circumferential direction by at least one selected from among texts, numbers, images, and colors as claimed within claim 15. It would require an improper level of hindsight to combine those limitations with the above prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615