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 “fixed member comprises a second insertion slot, the second insertion slot configured to receive a first portion of a second flexible element; the rotating member comprises a second guide that is offset from the axis of rotation, the second guide configured to enable a second portion of the second flexible element to pass through the rotating member; and the rotation mechanism is configured to rotate the rotating member in the first direction around the axis of rotation to coil both the second portion of the first flexible element and the second portion of the second flexible element around the shaft” as set forth in Claim 11; the “electric motor; spring; or hand crank” as set forth in Claim 12 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 1-5, 7, 9, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (U.S. Patent No. 6,971,605) in view of Scherer (U.S. Patent No. 4,589,601).
With respect to Claim 1, Martin, Figures 1-2, teaches an apparatus comprising:
a fixed member 112 comprising an insertion slot 138, the insertion slot 138 configured to secure a first portion of a flexible element;
a shaft 102 having first and second ends, the first end positioned proximate to the fixed member;
a rotating member 114 positioned proximate to the second end of the shaft and configured to rotatably move about an axis of rotation, the rotating member 114 comprising a guide 116 offset from the axis of rotation, the guide 116 configured to enable a second portion of the flexible element to pass through the rotating member; and
a rotation mechanism 110 configured to rotate the rotating member in a first direction around the axis of rotation to coil the second portion of the flexible element around the shaft, wherein:
the shaft 102 is configured to be relatively stationary compared to the rotating member.
Martin teaches all the elements of the apparatus except for
the shaft comprising at least one tapered section such that the shaft has a first cross-sectional area proximate to the rotating member and a second cross-sectional area proximate to the fixed member, the first cross-sectional area being larger than the second cross-sectional area.
However, Scherer, Figures 1-2, teaches
a shaft 6 comprising at least one tapered section such that the shaft has a first cross-sectional area proximate to the rotating member and a second cross-sectional area proximate to the fixed member, the first cross-sectional area being larger than the second cross-sectional area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Martin with a tapered surface, as taught by Scherer, because this permits the turns of material to be nested into each other and permits a longer length of material to be wound on the spool.
With respect to Claim 2, Martin further teaches wherein the fixed member 112 and the shaft 102 are configured to be substantially stationary while the rotating member rotates in the first direction.
With respect to Claim 3, Martin further teaches wherein the insertion slot 138 of the fixed member is configured to hold the first portion of the flexible element at a fixed position while the second portion of the flexible element coils around the shaft.
With respect to Claim 4, Martin further teaches wherein the guide 116 of the rotating member 114 is configured to position the second portion of the flexible element along another axis that is approximately parallel to the axis of rotation and perpendicular to a direction of rotation.
With respect to Claim 5, Martin further teaches wherein: a length of the shaft is positioned along the axis of rotation; a planar surface of the rotating member is approximately perpendicular to the axis of rotation; and a planar surface of the fixed member is approximately perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
With respect to Claim 7, Martin further teaches wherein the rotation mechanism is configured to rotate the rotating member in a second direction around the axis of rotation to uncoil the second portion of the flexible element, the second direction being opposite the first direction.
With respect to Claim 9, Martin further teaches wherein the at least one tapered section of the shaft is configured to cause the second portion of the flexible element to form a first coil proximate to the fixed member.
With respect to Claim 15, Martin, Figures 1-2, teaches an apparatus comprising:
a shaft 102;
fixed means 112 for securing a first portion of a flexible element; and
rotating means 114 for coiling a second portion of the flexible element around the shaft as the shaft and the fixed means remain relatively stationary compared to the rotating means.
Martin teaches all the elements of the apparatus except for
wherein the shaft comprises at least one tapered section such that the shaft has a first cross-sectional area that is proximate to the rotating means and a second cross- sectional area that is proximate to the fixed means, the first cross-sectional area being larger than the second cross-sectional area.
However, Scherer, Figures 1-2, teaches
a shaft 6 comprising at least one tapered section such that the shaft has a first cross-sectional area that is proximate to the rotating means and a second cross- sectional area that is proximate to the fixed means, the first cross-sectional area being larger than the second cross-sectional area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Martin with a tapered surface, as taught by Scherer, because this permits the turns of material to be nested into each other and permits a longer length of material to be wound on the spool.
With respect to Claim 16, Martin further teaches a means for storing 116 a device attached to the second portion of the flexible element.
With respect to Claim 17, Martin further at least one flexible element 200; and
a coiler of comprising the fixed member, the shaft, the rotating member, and the rotation mechanism.
With respect to Claim 18, Martin further teaches wherein the at least one flexible element 200 comprises at least one of the following: an electrical cord; a water hose; flexible tubing; rope; cable; or chain.
With respect to Claim 19, Martin further teaches wherein a cross section of the at least one flexible element 200 has a round shape or a rectangular shape.
With respect to Claim 20, Martin, Figures 1-2, teaches a method performed by a coiler comprising a fixed member 112, a rotating member 114, and a shaft 102, the method comprising:
securing a first portion of the flexible element to the fixed member of the coiler;
rotating the rotating member of the coiler in a first direction around an axis of rotation as the fixed member and the shaft of the coiler remain relatively stationary, the shaft positioned between the fixed member and the rotating member;
passing a second portion of the flexible element through the rotating member; and
coiling the second portion of the flexible element around the shaft.
Martin teaches all the elements of the apparatus except for
a shaft having at least one tapered section such that the shaft has a first cross-sectional area proximate to the rotating member and a second cross-sectional area proximate to the fixed member, the first cross-sectional area being larger than the second cross-sectional area.
However, Scherer, Figures 1-2, teaches
a shaft 6 having at least one tapered section such that the shaft has a first cross-sectional area proximate to the rotating member and a second cross-sectional area proximate to the fixed member, the first cross-sectional area being larger than the second cross-sectional area.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Scherer as applied to Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 15-20 above, and further in view of Clarke (U.S. Patent No. 5,090,647).
With respect to Claim 6, Martin in view of Scherer are advanced above.
Martin in view of Scherer teach all the elements of the apparatus except for
wherein the guide of the rotating member comprises at least one roller configured to freely rotate to enable the flexible element to pass through the rotating member.
However, Clarke, Figures 1-2 teaches
a guide of the rotating member comprises at least one roller 20 configured to freely rotate to enable the flexible element to pass through the rotating member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Martin in view of Scherer with rollers, as taught by Clarke, for the purpose of minimizing the friction of the material going through the guide.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Scherer as applied to Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 15-20 above, and further in view of Henshaw (U.S. Patent No. 1,179,309).
With respect to Claim 8, Martin in view of Scherer are advanced above.
Martin in view of Scherer teach all the elements of the apparatus except for further teaches wherein:
the at least one tapered section comprises multiple tapered sections; and
slopes of the multiple tapered sections form angles relative to a planar surface of the fixed member that decrease as the tapered sections are positioned closer to the rotating member.
However, Henshaw, Figure 1, teaches at least one tapered section comprises multiple tapered sections; and
slopes of the multiple tapered sections form angles relative to a planar surface of the fixed member that decrease as the tapered sections are positioned closer to the rotating member.
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 tapered sections, as taught by Henshaw, for the purpose of controlling the accumulation of material on the shaft surface.
With respect to Claim 10, Martin in view of Scherer are advanced above.
Scherer teach all the elements of the apparatus teaches the optimum angle of the tapered section being 45 degrees.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, to dimension the tapered surface of Scherer as specified in Claim 10, line 3, because one of ordinary skill would have been expected to have routinely experimented to determine the optimum dimensions for a particular use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 11-14 are 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 fixed member comprises a second insertion slot, the second insertion slot configured to receive a first portion of a second flexible element; the rotating member comprises a second guide that is offset from the axis of rotation, the second guide configured to enable a second portion of the second flexible element to pass through the rotating member; and the rotation mechanism is configured to rotate the rotating member in the first direction around the axis of rotation to coil both the second portion of the first flexible element and the second portion of the second flexible element around the shaft.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest wherein: the fixed member comprises a second insertion slot, the second insertion slot configured to receive a first portion of a second flexible element; the rotating member comprises a second guide that is offset from the axis of rotation, the second guide configured to enable a second portion of the second flexible element to pass through the rotating member; and the rotation mechanism is configured to rotate the rotating member in the first direction around the axis of rotation to coil both the second portion of the first flexible element and the second portion of the second flexible element around the shaft.as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the (preamble of the claim) 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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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