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 claims received on February 19th , 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 5, and 9-10 have been amended and claim 10 has been canceled. Objections to the claims filed on November 14th, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed February 19th , 2026, with respect to claims 1-3, 5, and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of November 14th, 2025 regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 9 has been withdrawn. However, the Applicant's arguments regarding amended claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that LaFontaine (US 2014/0263815 A1) fails to teach or suggest the combination of a first cable bundle having an inner diameter; 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; 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. It is acknowledged that the amendment of claim 10 teaches away the previously cited paragraph 36 and figure 5 of LaFontaine. However, LaFontaine remains relevant as it teaches another embodiment in paragraph 37 and figure 6, as admitted in the Applicant’s argument (see page 8). LaFontaine teaches a 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. It is further taught that the cable assemblies are received within each other as described in the claims. Applicant argues that depiction of figure 6 teaches away from the claimed invention since dispensing occurs from an inner coil diameter toward and outer coil diameter, however this limitation is not presented within the claims. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claims should not be read into the claims. See MPEP 2145 VI, citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also MPEP 2111.01 II.
Furthermore, 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. The winding and storing method of the claimed cable bundle does not require any unique or inventive elements as is clearly taught in the cited references. Thus, one skilled in the art merely requires to wind two or more bundles and place said bundles into the proposed container.
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).
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 and a second outlet through each of which the wound cable is pulled out from an inside of the one or more first containers (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Ln. 4-13, housing 17, corresponding to a container 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. (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.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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, 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
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654