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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 23rd,2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims received on March 23rd,2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended and claim 15 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1, regarding the addition of the two attachment elements connected to the base and top panels, is sufficient to overcome the rejection of the prior Office Action. While the hinge 18 of Crossett (US 2012/0091249 A1) is not necessarily of a similar shape to the two attachment elements of the claimed invention, the claim language merely requires there to be some sort of elements connected between a top and a bottom such as any form of side walls. Such an element is clearly disclosed and taught in the references cited in the previous Office Action. Furthermore, the claim language used has broadened the scope of the independent claim as it no longer requires the geometric features previously disclosed, for this reason, the rejection has been updated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(10 as being anticipated by Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Debaigt discloses a device for storing, transporting and installing electrical wires or cables (Fig. 2-3; Pg. 5, Ln. 27-36; Pg. 6, Ln. 1-7, package 8), comprising: a base panel (Fig. 2-4; Pg. 5, Ln. 19-21, bottom panel 12); a top panel parallel to said base panel (Fig. 2-4; Pg. 5, Ln. 19-21, top panel 14); at least two attachment elements connecting said base panel and said top panel (Fig. 2-4; Pg. 5, Ln. 19-21, opposed panels 20, 22); a plurality of predetermined locations of the base panel and the top panel (Fig. 5; Pg. 9, Ln. 27-31, notches 66); and a plurality of cylinders on each of which an electrical wire or cable is wound, said cylinders each having a central space over the entire length thereof (Fig. 1-4; Pg. 5, Ln. 9-21, bobbin 2 having central spaces), said cylinders each being rotatable about the base panel and/or the top panel, the cylinders being arranged to be inserted into/removed from the predetermined locations (Fig. 5; Pg. 9, Ln. 27-31), wherein the top and base panels are connected by the attachment elements on opposite sides so that the attachment elements extend from the top panel to the base panel and have the same length as the cylinders (Fig. 2-4; Pg. 5, Ln. 19-21,).
Regarding claim 2, Debaigt discloses wherein said at least one cylinder has flat upper and lower faces indicating the value of the section of said wire or cable (Fig. 1; Pg. 5, Ln. 1-12, end faces 2C).
Regarding claim 7, Debaigt discloses wherein said base panel and/or said top panel comprises at least one wire-hooking eyelet adapted to receive one end of said wire or cable (Fig. 3; Pg. 5, Ln. 30-34, fixing point 24).
Regarding claim 8, Debaigt discloses wherein said device further comprises a carrying handle on said top panel (Fig. 5; Pg. 8, Ln. 32-36, flaps 54).
Regarding claim 10, Debaigt discloses wherein said device further comprises at least one rod equipped with a wire-guide eyelet arranged on said base panel or on said top panel (Fig. 8, 10; Pg. 10, Ln. 12-33, fixing part corresponding to a rod, and fixing part 24 corresponding to an eyelet).
Regarding claim 13, Debaigt discloses a refill for the device (Pg. 13, Ln. 21-30 describing the replacement of the bobbin corresponding to a refill) wherein said device comprises a cylinder on which an electrical wire or cable is wound (Fig. 1-4; Pg. 5, Ln. 9-21, bobbin 2), said cylinder having a central space over the entire length thereof and having flat upper and lower faces indicating the value of the section of said wire or cable (Fig. 1; Pg. 5, Ln. 1-12, end faces 2C).
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 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Yang (EP 1,900,671 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Debaigt discloses the claimed invention except for a color-coded indication for the value of the section of the wire. However, Yang 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Crossett (US 2012/0091249 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Debaigt discloses the claimed invention except for the cylinders being made of cardboard. However, Crosset teaches wherein said at least one cylinder is made of cardboard (Pg. 6, ¶70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated cardboard cylinders to the device as it provides greater strengths which further allows for the holding of heavier materials.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Rhoads (US 10,124,982 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Debaigt discloses the claimed invention except for 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.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debaigt (WO 2020/115518 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Houston (US 2010/0314484 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Debaigt discloses the claimed invention except for the device comprising should straps, and wherein the two attachment elements are the shoulder straps. However, Houston teaches wherein said at least two attachment elements are attachment 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
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, 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.
ERMIA E. MELIKA
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights