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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 1st, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims received on June 1st, 2026 have been entered. Claim 10 has been amended and claim 11 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 has 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, regarding claim 10, that Brenner (US 8,496,858 B2) fails to disclose wherein both ends of the cable may be pulled from their respective outlets during an unwinding. While, Brenner does not necessarily describe the pulling of both ends of the cable during an unwinding, Brenner does mention a winding end 15 extends from opening 18 and a wind start end is unwound from opening 19 (see Col. 3, Ln. 4-23). One skilled in the art may understand the extension from both outlets as a pulling of sorts, however, said pulling is not directly stated. For this reason, the teachings of Yonechi (JP H01209284 A) is introduced, wherein both ends 1a, 1b are configured to be pulled from opposite outlets of the container. The Office Action has been updated below.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner (US 8,496,858 B2), in view of LaFontaine (US 2014/0263815 A1), and in further view of Yonechi (JP H01209284 A).
Regarding claim 10, Brenner discloses a cable accommodating body comprising one or more cable bundles made of a wound cable and not having any winding core (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 4-13, winding 12 corresponding to cable bundles), and one or more first containers accommodating the one or more cable bundles and having a first outlet through which a first end of the wound cable is pulled out from an inside of the one or more containers during unwinding of the wound cable, and a second outlet through which a second end of the wound cable is pulled out from the inside of the one or more first containers during unwinding of the wound cable (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 4-13, housing 17, corresponding to a container, and openings 18, 19 corresponding to first and second outlets), wherein two or more of the cable bundles are connected together (Col. 2, Ln. 27-33).
Brenner fails to disclose a second bundle positioned inside a first bundle. However, LaFontaine teaches wherein the two or more cable bundles include a first cable bundle having an inner diameter, and a second cable bundle having an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the first cable bundle, the second cable bundle is accommodated inside the first cable bundle, and the first cable bundle is made of the wound cable continuously wound with the inner diameter, and the second cable bundle is made of the wound cable continuously wound with the outer diameter, and wherein the second cable bundle is accommodated inside the first cable bundle in a nested manner (Fig. 6 & Pg.4-5, ¶39, plurality of cable assemblies 608, corresponding to more than one cable bundles, which define an outer coil diameter 612 and an inner coil diameter 610). 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 first bundle enclosing a second bundle within the container in order to provide a means for storing multiple bundles without utilizing a large amount of space.
Brenner further fails to disclose wherein both ends of the cables are pulled during unwinding. However, Yonechi teaches one or more cable bundles and having a first outlet through which a first end of the wound cable is pulled out from an inside of the one or more containers during unwinding of the wound cable, and a second outlet through which a second end of the wound cable is pulled out from the inside of the one or more first containers during unwinding of the wound cable (Fig. 3 & Pg. 1-2, ¶6, ends 1A and 1B being pulled from both ends during unwinding). 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 the pulling of both ends of the cable in order to provide means for a quick and efficient means for unwinding from more than one direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1, is allowable because it includes the limitation of a cable accommodating body comprising two or more first containers each accommodating two or more cable bundles respectively, and more specifically wherein the two or more first containers include an upper container and a lower container stacked on and being out of alignment with the upper container, and the first outlet or the second outlet of the lower container is exposed from the upper container, in combination with the other elements cited in claim 1. It should be noted that prior art references such as Brenner (US 8,496,858 B2), LaFontaine (US 2014/0263815 A1), and Phillips (US 3,722,825 A) disclose or teach in the claimed invention as well as the stacking of multiple containers. However, such references fail to describe the limitation above. It should be further added that the limitation of the misalignment is defined as an arrangement in which two or more things are not positioned correctly in a straight line or parallel to each other, and as such would not be obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate. Dependent claims 2-3, 5, and 9 have also been allowed for depending directly and/or indirectly to claim 1.
None of the cited references of the prior art disclose, teach, or suggest the elements of the device as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant’s specification, for modifying the device in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references disclose containers for coreless cables which have the capability to be unwound for multiple outlets.
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 through Thursday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST and a flexed schedule on Fridays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights