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 “wherein the shaft has an axis of rotation, wherein the axis of rotation of the shaft is mounted stationary with respect to the axis of rotation of the drum” as set forth in Claim 18, lines 13-14 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 § 112, 2nd Paragraph
Claims 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 is vague and indefinite and omits the necessary structural cooperative relationship to achieve a functional apparatus. On lines 10-13, the phrase “wherein the device to prevent the windings of the object from piling up has a shaft which has an external thread, wherein the external thread extends transversely over the supporting surface and the raised portions at a small spacing over a narrow gap from the raised portions, and wherein the shaft has an axis of rotation, wherein the axis of rotation of the shaft is mounted stationary with respect to the axis of rotation of the drum” is unclear. If the shaft has an axis of rotation which is fixed, then the shaft is a singular piece. If the axis of rotation is mounted stationary, then the shaft is mounted stationary. Therefore, how can the shaft rotate? Therefore, it appears that the claim does omit necessary elements because there is no way to mount the shaft in a way that its axis of rotation is mounted stationary and still allow to rotate unless there is an additional component.
Claims 19-37 are rejected due to their dependency upon rejected Claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 46-6898 to CS Corporation, hereinafter “CS”
With respect to Claim 18, CS, Figures 1-3, teaches an apparatus for winding on an object 2, in a form of a line or cable, extending in a longitudinal direction, the apparatus comprising:
a drum (See Figure 1) rotatable about an axis of rotation in a direction of rotation and having a supporting surface extending over the periphery of the drum for support of the object 2 to wound on and raised portions A which extend radially away from the axis of rotation of the drum (See Figure 1) at the sides or in lateral regions of the supporting surface and which laterally delimit a receiving space disposed between them for the object 2 to be wound on, and
a device B to prevent the windings of the object 2 from piling up in a narrow region of the transverse extent of the supporting surface,
wherein the device B to prevent the windings of the object from piling up has a shaft which has an external thread 14,15,16,17,18 wherein the external thread extends transversely over the supporting surface and the raised portions 14 at a small spacing over a narrow gap from the raised portions 14 and
wherein the shaft has an axis of rotation, wherein the axis of rotation of the shaft is mounted stationary with respect to the axis of rotation of the drum (See Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 19, CS further teaches wherein the shaft is arranged in a peripheral region of the drum, that adjoins the feed of the object 2 to the drum (See Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 20, CS further teaches wherein the shaft is arranged parallel to the axis of rotation of the drum.
With respect to Claim 21, CS further teaches wherein the shaft, viewed in the direction of rotation of the drum at the location of the shaft and with a horizontal view of the shaft, has a left-region. See Figure 2.
With respect to Claim 22, CS further teaches wherein the right end of the left-hand thread portion and the left end of the right-hand thread portion are connected directly together.
With respect to Claim 23, CS further teaches wherein the left-hand thread portion and the right-hand thread portion are connected together in the centre of the shaft 26.
With respect to Claim 24, CS further teaches wherein the left-hand thread portion and the right-hand thread portion are arranged in mirror-image relative to each other with respect to a plane extending at the connecting location perpendicularly to the axis of rotation of the shaft.
Claim(s) 18-25, 27-28, and 31-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevens (U.S. Patent No. 2,740,594).
With respect to Claim 18, Stevens, Figures 1-5, teaches an apparatus for winding on an object C, in a form of a line or cable, extending in a longitudinal direction, the apparatus comprising:
a drum 10 rotatable about an axis of rotation in a direction of rotation and having a supporting surface 14 extending over the periphery of the drum for support of the object C to wound on and raised portions 21 which extend radially away from the axis of rotation of the drum 10 at the sides or in lateral regions of the supporting surface 14 and which laterally delimit a receiving space disposed between them for the object C to be wound on, and
a device 22 to prevent the windings of the object C from piling up in a narrow region of the transverse extent of the supporting surface 14,
wherein the device to prevent the windings of the object from piling up has a shaft which has an external thread 33,34 and extends transversely over the supporting surface 14 and the raised portions 12 at a small spacing over a narrow gap 32 from the raised portions 21 and wherein the shaft has an axis of rotation, wherein the axis of rotation of the shaft is mounted stationary (note that the axis of rotation would be stationary with each respect layer being wound as well as when the winding/unwinding has stopped) with respect to the axis of rotation of the drum.
With respect to Claim 19, Stevens further teaches wherein the shaft 26 is arranged in a peripheral region of the drum, that adjoins the feed of the object C to the drum 10.
With respect to Claim 20, Stevens further teaches wherein the shaft 26 is arranged parallel to the axis of rotation of the drum 10.
With respect to Claim 21, Stevens further teaches wherein the shaft 26, viewed in the direction of rotation of the drum 10 at the location of the shaft 26 and with a horizontal view of the shaft, has a left-region 33,44. See Figure 5.
With respect to Claim 22, Stevens further teaches wherein the right end of the left-hand thread portion 33,44 and the left end of the right-hand thread portion 32,43 are connected directly together. See Figure 5.
With respect to Claim 23, Stevens further teaches wherein the left-hand thread portion 33,44 and the right-hand thread portion 32,43 are connected together in the centre 34 of the shaft 26. See Figure 5.
With respect to Claim 24, Stevens further teaches wherein the left-hand thread portion 33,44 and the right-hand thread portion 32,43 are arranged in mirror-image relative to each other with respect to a plane extending at the connecting location perpendicularly to the axis of rotation of the shaft 26. See Figure 5.
With respect to Claim 25, Stevens further teaches wherein the left-hand thread portion 33,44 and the right-hand thread portion 32,43 are arranged displaced relative to each other through 180° about the axis of rotation with respect to a mirror-image arrangement with respect to the plane extending perpendicularly to the axis of rotation, wherein in particular the plane extends at the connecting location through a thread crest of the one thread portion and a thread groove of the other thread portion.
With respect to Claim 27, Stevens further teaches wherein the shaft 26 is in the form of a hollow shaft and is mounted rotatably on a spindle 27 held at or in the component 12,13 arranged laterally of the drum.
With respect to Claim 28, Stevens further teaches wherein at its ends the shaft 26 has bearing journals 28 which engage into bearing mountings at or in the component 12,13 arranged laterally of the drum.
With respect to Claim 31, Stevens further teaches wherein the component 12,13 arranged laterally of the drum 10 has a wall for mounting the shaft 26 (via element 24), said wall extending parallel to the adjoining end face of the drum 10.
With respect to Claim 32, Stevens further teaches wherein the drum 10 is mounted rotatably to the wall 12,13.
With respect to Claim 33, Stevens further wherein at least one of the raised portions 21 arranged laterally of the supporting surface for the object C to be wound on the drum 10 is in the form of a flange 21 which extends radially outwardly from the supporting surface over a height, wherein the shaft extends at a small spacing relative to the flange 21 over same and the supporting surface 14.
With respect to Claim 34, Stevens further teaches wherein the flange 21 extending radially outwardly at least at one side of the supporting surface 14 is in the form of a flange 21 in the shape of a circular ring which extends over the entire periphery of the drum 10 and which at its outside remote from the supporting surface forms an end region of the drum.
With respect to Claim 35, Stevens further teaches wherein, during winding on the object, the shaft is driven exclusively by a region of the object being wound that rests on lower windings of the object and contacts the external thread from below, caused by rotation of the drum.
With respect to Claim 36, Stevens further teaches whereby, as a result of the axis of rotation of the shaft being mounted stationary, the axis of rotation of the shaft remains stationary during all of winding on the object.
With respect to Claim 37, Stevens further teaches whereby, as a result of the axis of rotation of the shaft being mounted stationary, the axis of rotation of the shaft remains stationary during winding on multiple layers of the object.
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) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens as applied to Claims 18-25, 27-28, and 31-37 above, and further in view of Catry (EP 2 292 542).
With respect to Claim 26, Stevens is advanced above.
Stevens teaches all the elements of the apparatus except for wherein the shaft has a continuous left-hand thread or a continuous right-hand thread viewed in the direction of rotation of the drum at the location of the shaft.
However, Catry, Figures 1-8, teaches wherein the shaft has a continuous left-hand thread or a continuous right-hand thread 6 (See Paragraph [0049]) viewed in the direction of rotation of the drum at the location of the shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Stevens with continuous left-hand or continuous right-hand threads, as taught by Catry, for the purpose of maintaining one direction winding of the material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 29 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the entire combination of elements of the apparatus set forth including wherein at at least one of its end regions the shaft is provided with a frustoconical enlargement which faces towards the end in question and the largest diameter of which is larger than the outside diameter of the thread of the shaft, wherein the spacing between the enlargement and the supporting surface is less than the height of the flange above the supporting surface.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest wherein at least one of its end regions the shaft is provided with a frustoconical enlargement which faces towards the end in question and the largest diameter of which is larger than the outside diameter of the thread of the shaft, wherein the spacing between the enlargement and the supporting surface is less than the height of the flange above the supporting surface as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the apparatus in the manner required by the claims.
Claim 30 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the entire combination of elements of the apparatus set forth including wherein the outside diameter of the thread of the shaft increases at least in one of its end regions in a direction towards the end face of the shaft, that adjoins the end region.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest wherein the outside diameter of the thread of the shaft increases at least in one of its end regions in a direction towards the end face of the shaft, that adjoins the end region as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the apparatus in the manner required by the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on Page 6 regarding the 35 USC § 112, 2nd Paragraph rejection, it is the applicant’s position that a structure does not necessarily need a support on which the structure may rotate on in order for the structure to have an axis of rotation. Applicant further cites examples such as the axis of rotation of the Earth as well as Frisbee flying disc rotating about an axis of rotation even though there is no support structure supporting the flying disc for rotation.
In the instant case, these remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Note that the instant invention does not and will not be spinning/rotating constantly at an about 1040 miles per hour in outer space just like the earth does. If applicant’s shaft were in fact floating in space, then applicant may have a point. But if the shaft were to be in space, where is that shaft anchored and how does it rotate if it’s anchored? It is clear that the shaft exists on earth and gravity exists on earth. Further, the instant invention will not be flying and spinning through the air like a frisbee any time soon when it is being used by a user.
On page 7, applicant asks if the Office is asserting that the claim omits essential subject matter, the Office is respectfully requested to identify the missing subject matter disclosed to be essential to the invention.
Based on applicant’s new claim language regarding “the axis of rotation of the shaft is mounted stationary with respect to the axis of rotation of the drum”, Claim 1, lines 13-14, it appears essential elements are in fact omitted and the examiner has made the appropriate rejection under 35 USC § 112, 2nd Paragraph above.
Applicant should note Paragraph [0096], shown below, of the instant specification.
“[0096] In the embodiment shown in Figures 17 to 34 the shaft 9 is in each case in the form of a hollow shaft mounted rotatably on a spindle (not shown in the drawing) which is rotatably mounted at or in the component 12 which is stationary with respect to the rotatable drum 2.”
With respect to applicant’s remarks regarding the CS reference, it is applicant’s position that the instant invention requires that the external thread extend transversely over the raised portions.
In the instant case, it is the examiner’s position that the external threads 14-18 are raised portions.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on Page 10 regarding the Stevens reference, it is the applicant’s position that the Office’s remarks regarding the shaft and the axis of rotation are misplaced. In the instant case, the current amendment to independent Claim 1 raises more questions, as advanced above by the new 35 USC § 112, 2nd Paragraph rejection, in that it is unclear if the apparatus is even operable with the new requirement of “wherein the axis of rotation of the shaft is mounted stationary”.
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 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 on 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
Prosecution Insights