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 Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-15, 1st line, “A rotary dispenser” should be –The rotary dispenser--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, “at least two stacked drums,” recited in claim 5; “an outward urging member,” recited in claim 6; “the cable guide and/or rotating portion is/are ratcheted,” recited in claim 13; “the fixed portion comprises a foot,” recited in claims 14-15, 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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 and 13-15 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 6 is indefinite and vague. What constitutes “an outward urging member?” In so far the claim is understood as any biasing element meets the limitation of the claim.
Claim 13 is indefinite and vague. What constitutes “the cable guide and/or rotating portion is/are ratcheted?” In so far the claim is understood as any locking and/or brake member to the device meets the limitations of the claim.
Claims 14-15 are indefinite and vague. What constitutes “the fixed portion comprises a foot?” In so far the claim is understood as any element supporting the fixed portion meets the limitations of the claim.
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 1-4, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1956631, in view of Gniadek et al., U.S. Patent No. 7599598 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Snyder ‘631 discloses a rotary dispenser (see figure 1) for unwinding a wire or other strand from a drum 19, the rotary dispenser comprising: a rotating portion (i.e., a rotary bearing 24, 22-24, claim 3) for supporting the drum 19 and for permitting rotation of the drum 19 about an axis of rotation (i.e., an axis of 18), a fixed portion 1 (i.e., a bottom surface providing as a foot, as same as applicant’s figures, claims 14-15) supporting the rotating portion (22-24) and configured to remain static relative to the rotating portion, a locating member (e.g., a spindle 18 is fixed to the rotating member, claims 4 and 8) for centering the drum 19 about the axis of rotation, a cable guide (i.e., an idler roller 38 shaped like a pulley, 35-38, claim 2), coupled to the fixed portion 1, for receiving the wire or other strand from the drum 19 when the drum is mounted on the rotary dispenser and configured to support movement of the wire or other strand through the cable guide (35-38) as the rotating portion (22-24) and the drum 19 are rotated with the rotating portion, and an urging member (30-31) for urging the cable guide (35-38) away from the rotating portion (see figure 4) so as to tension the wire or other strand in use; an arm 34 projecting away from the fixed position and hinged (i.e., 34 connected 26 which pivots, claims 9-10); a brake (31-33, providing a locking mechanism, claim 13) for inhibiting motion of the rotation portion and the pulley (claims 11-12), see figures 1-4.
As stated above, Snyder ‘631 recognizes that other material can be dispensed.
Gniadek ‘598 discloses the concept of dispensing a telecommunications cable 210 from the spools (320, 330), see figures 2-4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Snyder ‘631 to include a telecommunication cable as suggested by Gniadek ‘598 to show that other materials can be dispensed from the spool. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder ‘631, in view of Gniadek ‘598 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Curtland, U.S. Patent No. 3476330.
As stated above, Snyder ‘631 shows the spindle 18 holding a drum 19 as same as applicant’s figures.
Curtland ‘330 recognizes the concept of making the locating member 20 bigger to hold a multiple stack of the coils, see figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the length of the spindle of Snyder ‘631 to include a bigger length of supporting member as suggested by Curtland ‘330 to accommodate more materials. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder ‘631, in view of Gniadek ‘598 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Flocchini, U.S. Patent No. 9730560 B2.
As stated above, Snyder ‘631 shows the spindle 18 holding a drum 19 as same as applicant’s figures.
Flocchini ‘560 recognizes the concept of making the spindle 120 with an outward urging member 142 for engaging the dispensing material, see figures 6A-B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the length of the spindle of Snyder ‘631 to include an urging member as suggested by Flocchini ‘560 to hold the material during dispensing. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder ‘631, in view of Gniadek ‘598 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Morano, U.S. Patent No. 5135179.
As stated above, Snyder ‘631 shows the spindle 18 holding a drum 19.
Morano ‘179 recognizes the concept of holding the roll material 5 with a spindle 13 and a wall formation (125 inserted into 117), see figures 2-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the length of the spindle of Snyder ‘631 to include a wall formation as suggested by Morano ‘179 to prevent the material from misaligning during dispensing. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anna Momper, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SK
9/8/25
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654