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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the drawings and claims received on October 17th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 13-14 have been amended, and claims 5 and 12 have been canceled. Objections to the drawings and claims filed on June 18th, 2025 have been withdrawn. The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections filed on June 18th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed October 17th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 112(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chastain (US 2013/0087652 A1), and in further view of Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1).
While the applicant’s amendment to claim 1 was sufficient to overcome the previous Office Action’s rejection, the examiner notes that the teachings of Chastain and Debaigt further render the applicant’s invention unpatentable. The applicant’s amendment emphasizes the addition of a plurality of predetermined geometrically shaped shafts as well as a plurality of cylinders within the storing device. The examiner notes that simply having a plurality of an item for storing is very advantageous within the art and thus renders the limitation obvious. Regarding the predetermined shaped shafts, Chastain teaches two individual shafts having a predetermined shape to be placed within the panels of storing device. Chastain further teaches the locking of said shaft and further allowing the cylinder to rotate freely while the shafts remain locked.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossett (US 2012/0091249 A1), in view of Chastain (US 2013/0087652 A1), and in further view of Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Crossett discloses a device for storing, transporting and installing electrical wires or cables, comprising (Pg. 2, ¶36):
a base panel (Pg. 2, ¶36 & Fig. 1, portion halves 12, 14);
a top panel parallel to said base panel and at least two attachment elements connecting said base panel and said top panel (Pg. 2, ¶36 & Fig. 1, hinge 18 and fastener 16);
a cylinder which an electrical wire or cable is wound (Pg. 6, ¶71 cable wound on spool corresponding to cylinder), said cylinder having a central space over the entire length thereof, said space allowing said cylinder being rotatable about said shaft (Pg. 3, ¶43), but fails to disclose a shaft having a predetermined geometry and interlocking with said top and base panels, as well as comprising a plurality of said shafts and cylinders. However, Chastain teaches a plurality of shafts interlocking into predetermined locations of the base panel and the top panel, the shafts each having a predetermined geometric shape (Fig 20, & ¶83, spindles 202, 204 having a predetermined geometric shape). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of shafts interlocking with the top and base panels in order to allow minimal movement of the shaft and cylinder assembly as a whole.
Further, Debaigt teaches a plurality of cylinders in a storing device (Figs. 2-3, & Pg. 5, Ln. 13-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of cylinders to the reel storing device in order to provide means for carrying, storing, and utilizing more than one reel at the same time.
Regarding claim 4, Crossett discloses wherein said at least one cylinder is made of cardboard (Pg. 6, ¶70).
Regarding claim 8, Crossett discloses wherein said device further comprises a carrying handle on said top panel (Fig. 4, handle 80 located on both panels).
Regarding claim 9, Crossett discloses wherein said device further comprises a carrying shoulder strap on said base panel or on said top panel (Pg. 4, ¶53).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossett (US 2012/0091249 A1), in view of Chastain (US 2013/0087652 A1), in further view of Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1), and in further view of Yang (EP 1,900,671 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 13-14, Crossett discloses wherein said device comprises a cylinder on which an electrical wire or cable is wound, said cylinder having a central space over the entire length thereof and having flat upper and lower faces (Pg. 6, ¶71 cable wound on spool corresponding to cylinder having two flat faces), but fails to disclose an indication for the value of the section of the wire. However, Tang teaches flat surfaces indicating the value of the section of said wire or cable by color coding (Pg. 2-3, ¶10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a color coding means of determining the number of wires left on the flat portion of the cylinder to provide an easy way for identifying whether the spools are near depletion without the need of opening the container.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossett (US 2012/0091249 A1), in view of Chastain (US 2013/0087652 A1), in further view of Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1), and in further view of Rhoads (US 10,124,982 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Crossett fails to discloses a series of marks indicating amount of wires remaining. However, Rhoads teaches wherein said base panel and said top panel for interlocking of said shaft, a series of marks indicating the remaining amount of wire or cable wound around said cylinder (Col. 3, Ln. 16-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated markers for indicating available wires to the wire storage device to provide a means of checking wire availability without opening the storage container or the hassle of guessing whether the spool has any wires remaining.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossett (US 2012/0091249 A1), in view of Chastain (US 2013/0087652 A1), in further view of Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1), and in further view of Little (US 2020/0031606 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Crossett fails to disclose an eyelet. However, Little teaches wherein said base panel and/or said top panel comprises at least one rod equipped with a wire -guide eyelet to receive one end of said wire or cable (Fig. 1-2, guide 22). Both Crossett and Little are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dispensing materials such as yarn or electrical wire. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a rod having an eyelet on the base or top of the device to provide guiding means so that the spool may remain in place without tangling the wound material.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crossett (US 2012/0091249 A1), in view of Chastain (US 2013/0087652 A1), in further view of Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1), and in further view of Houston (US 2010/0314484 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Crossett discloses wherein said at least two attachment elements are attachment straps (Pg. 4, ¶53) but fails to disclose wherein the straps are adjustable. However, Houston teaches straps of adjustable length (Pg. 2, ¶23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated adjustable straps to the device as it has been found obvious in the art that the straps are recommended to be adjustable for maximum comfort.
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 ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Anna M. Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619