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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on June 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 1, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3-15 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 3 is vague and indefinite. On lines 1-2, the phrase “wherein the first flange defines a plurality of elongated apertures, each of which is received in a corresponding one of the plurality of elongated apertures” is unclear. How can elongated apertures be received in corresponding elongated apertures? How can a hole be in a hole? How can an aperture have a length if the aperture is an empty space? What structure allows the aperture to have an elongated feature?
Claims 4-15 are rejected due to their dependency upon Claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoe (U.S. Patent No. 4,739,945) in view of Ripplinger (U.S. Patent No. 5,464,171).
With respect to Claim 1, Yokoe, Figures 1-4, teaches a reel 11 comprising:
a core 14 having a first end region;
a first flange 12;
a first hub member 15,16; and
a first joint 25 connecting the first hub member to the first end region of the core 14.
Yokoe teaches all the elements of the reel except for the first bonded joint including a first susceptor material arranged between the first hub member and the first end region of the core,
wherein the first hub member and the first end region of the core are bonded together around the first susceptor material in such a way that the first flange is interposed between the first hub member and the first end region of the core.
However, Ripplinger, Figure 16, that it is known to use susceptor material in order to bond elements together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the snap-fit connection of Yokoe with a bonded connection, as taught by Ripplinger, because a bonded connection would create a bond that cannot be undone without damaging parts, bonding can distribute stress more evenly across the joined surfaces, and bonding would allow for flush, seamless joints without visible fasteners.
With respect to Claim 2, Yokoe further teaches wherein the first hub member 15,16 includes a disk portion and a plurality of axially-extending projections 25, the first bonded joint connecting the axially-extending projections to the first end region of the core.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ARAUZ RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM MDT.
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.
/WILLIAM A. RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights