Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/551,233

APPARATUS FOR WINDING ON AN OBJECT EXTENDING IN A LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION LIKE A LINE OR A CABLE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 19, 2023
Examiner
RIVERA, WILLIAM ARAUZ
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Igus GmbH
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
948 granted / 1271 resolved
+22.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1301
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.1%
+1.1% vs TC avg
§102
30.0%
-10.0% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1271 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 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. 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 and extends transversely over the supporting surface and the raised portions at a small spacing over a narrow gap from the raised portions and an axis of rotation which is stationary with respect to the axis of rotation of the drum” is unclear. How can there be an axis of rotation if there is no structure set forth on which the device may rotate? How does the device rotate if there is no structure supporting the device for rotation? 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) 18-25 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 and 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 axis of rotation which is 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 31-34 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 axis of rotation which is 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. 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 31-34 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 with respect to Claim(s) 18-34 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection. On Page 9, 3rd paragraph of applicant’s remarks, applicant states that Stevens shaft is not mounted stationarily with respect to the axis of rotation. However, applicant’s shaft is not mounted stationarily either. See rejection under 35 USC § 112, 1st Paragraph above. 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 19, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jul 24, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Dec 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599875
WINDING SYSTEM FOR WINDING UP CONCATENATED HOLLOW FIBRES ONTO A WINDING CORE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600589
ROLL DISPENSER FOR SUPPORTING ROLL OF PACKAGING MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599120
WATERPROOF SPINNING FISHING REEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595146
HAND DISPENSER FOR STRETCH WRAP COMPRISED OF PAPER OR CARDBOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595151
REEL SPOOLING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+9.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1271 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month