12 and
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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-2 and 5-15 are currently pending. Claims 3 and 4 were canceled per Applicant. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12 and 14 remain rejected despite Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026. Claims 6, 13 and 15 are objected to. Amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection presented within this Office action. Amendments to specification, drawings and claims have overcome objections previously set forth. Response to Applicant arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
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, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101033808 B1) in view of Ewing et al. (US 5280880 A).
Regarding claim 1: Kim teaches 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). 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 at a constant pitch so as to wind the power cable at a constant pitch, 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, and 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 formed in the guide groove.
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 at a constant pitch so as to wind the power cable at a constant pitch (20; Fig.2),
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), and
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 modifications of Ewing to provide a dedicated cable groove to prevent service disruptions, 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 operations, and 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).
Regarding claim 5: Kim in view of Ewing teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of position adjusting holes are alternately formed for the guide groove that extends spirally along the longitudinal direction of the drum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the position adjusting holes where desired within the groove, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 7: Kim further teaches 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ewing and 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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ewing 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ewing and 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 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.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kim does not disclose all amended limitations of claim 1, see new obviousness rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kim neither discloses nor suggests any purpose or effect of preventing heat generation caused by eddy currents, Examiner submits that Fig.7 shows the cable 7 wound in a single layer and that the winding of a cable on the reel would be dependent upon the length of the cable and the length of the reel; therefore, Kim teaches the power cable wound in a single layer shown in Fig.7, which would prevent heat generation due to eddy current satisfying the limitations of the claimed apparatus.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights