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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/529,643 (filed on 07/28/2023) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 19-20, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In claim 9, line 21, the limitation “said central face of each said winding core body” should read -- said central face of said winding core body --.
In claim 19, line 7-8, the limitation “the radial surface to engage the inner axle face” should read -- the outward facing radial surface to engage the inward facing inner axle face --.
In claim 19, line 9, the limitation “an end of material stock” should read -- an end of a material stock --.
In claim 20, line 2, the limitation “and expandable bladder” should read -- and the expandable bladder --.
In claim 22, line 1, the limitation “said outer radial wall thickness” should read -- a thickness of said outer radial wall --.
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.
Claims 19-20 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 19 limitation “obtaining an axle with an expandable bladder” (in line 4) renders the clam vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the axle recited in line 4 is referring to the same axle previously introduced in line 3, or if its another additional/separate axle that is fitted/housed within the axle cavity of the winding core. Clarification by the applicant is required.
The phrase "such as" in line 7 of claim 19, also renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 depends from parent claim 19. Subsequently, claim 20 is also rejected as being indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (U.S. Patent 4,840,323 A).
In regards to claim 19, Nakajima teach (Figures 4-8) a method of using a winding core (winding paper core 28) comprising the steps of: obtaining a winding core (winding paper core 28) having an axle cavity (hollow inner cavity of the winding paper core 28) defined by an inward facing inner axle face (inner cylindrical surface of the winding paper core 28 that contacts the outer surfaces of the hollow expandable annular members 17) that extends therethrough for housing an axle (web winding/rewinding shaft illustrated in figure 4); obtaining an axle (web winding/rewinding shaft illustrated in figure 4; which includes the center hollow shaft 10, the end rings 14a/14b, the retainer rings 15a/15b, the nuts 16a/16b, the hollow expandable annular members 17, and the spacer rings 18) with an expandable bladder (hollow expandable annular members 17) having an outward facing radial surface (outer surfaces of the hollow expandable annular members 17 that contacts the inner cylindrical surface of the winding paper core 28) that is sized to fit within the axle cavity of the winding core (hollow inner cavity of the winding paper core 28); seating the axle (web winding/rewinding shaft illustrated in figure 4) with the expandable bladder (hollow expandable annular members 17) within the axle cavity of the winding core (hollow inner cavity of the winding paper core 28); introducing a fluid (compressed air delivered/removed through the check valve plug 25 in the journal shaft 12b), such as air, into the expandable bladder (hollow expandable annular members 17), thereby expanding the outward facing radial surface of the expandable bladder (outer surfaces of the hollow expandable annular members 17) to engage the inward facing inner axle face of the winding core (inner cylindrical surface of the winding paper core 28) and securing the axle (web winding/rewinding shaft illustrated in figure 4) within the axle cavity of the winding core (hollow inner cavity of the winding paper core 28); securing an end of a material stock (web that is wound around the winding paper core 28; where said web can be paper, cloth, or metal sheet, as disclosed in the Abstract, Col. 1, line 7-9, and Col. 5, line 40-44) to the winding core (winding paper core 28); and introducing a rotary force on the axle (web winding/rewinding shaft illustrated in figure 4) for winding the material stock (web that is wound around the winding paper core 28) on the winding core (winding paper core 28) (see also Col. 4, line 15 - Col. 6, line 58).
In regards to claim 20, Nakajima teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Nakajima further teach (Figures 4-8), the step of deflating the expandable bladder (hollow expandable annular members 17), and removing the axle (web winding/rewinding shaft illustrated in figure 4; which includes the center hollow shaft 10, the end rings 14a/14b, the retainer rings 15a/15b, the nuts 16a/16b, the hollow expandable annular members 17, and the spacer rings 18) with the expandable bladder (hollow expandable annular members 17) from the winding core (winding paper core 28).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-18 and 21-25 appears to be allowable over the prior art made of record for the following reasons:
In regards to claim 9, the prior art od record, either individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious, a winding core having the specific collective structure recited by independent claim 9. In particular, a winding core comprising: a first winding core body having the exact features described within claim 9; a second winding core body having the exact features described within claim 9; and an inner axle support that includes a substantially cylindrical outward radial wall sized to fit within an inner space of the first/second winding core body, an inner radial wall with an inner axial face forming a cylinder for housing an axle, and a spanning wall extending between the cylindrical outward radial wall and the inner radial wall of the inner axle support; wherein the cylindrical outward radial wall and the inner axle support are concentrically secured together.
As set forth in the previous office action (dated 01/21/2026), Byers (U.S. Patent 2,190,013 A), Phelps (U.S. Patent 1,357,345 A), and Wheatley (GB671,378 A), looks to be the closest related prior art to applicant’s claimed invention. However, as further noted in the previous office action, neither Byers nor Wheatley explicitly disclose, the winding core including an inner axle support that has a substantially cylindrical outward radial wall sized to fit within an inner space of the first/second winding core body, that has an inner radial wall with inner axial face forming a cylinder operable to house an axle, and that includes a spanning wall spanning between the cylindrical outward radial wall and the inner radial wall of the inner axle support. On the contrary, Phelps teach (Figures 1-4) does propose the winding core (shell illustrated in figure 1 and 4, which is formed of the cylinder 10, the castings 12, and the tube 12) further comprising an inner axle support (intermediate ring 11); where the inner axle support including a substantially cylindrical outward radial wall (outer wall of the intermediate ring 11) that is sized to fit within an inner space (internal space of the cylinder 10) of the first winding core body (left-side casting12 with the cylinder 10), an inner radial wall (hub 16) having an inner axial face (inner peripheral surface of the hub 16) that forms a cylinder operable to house an axle (tube 21, or the rectangular bar of the machine as disclosed in page 2, line 4-9), and a spanning wall (radial arms 11') extending between the cylindrical outward radial wall (outer wall of the intermediate ring 11) and the inner radial wall (hub 16) of the inner axle support (intermediate ring 11). Nevertheless, Phelps does not propose, the central face of the first winding core body (end surface of the cylinder 10 that is connected to the right-side casting 12) and a central face of the second winding core body (end surface of the right-side casting 12 that faces the left-side casting 12) abutting each other, as required by limitations in claim 9. Moreover, all other applicable/analogues prior art identified by the examiner, also fails to explicitly reveal or suggested/conceive, an inner axle support having the precise structure/features described by claim 9, being positioned within a winding core body having the complete structural arrangement described by claim 9. Accordingly, claim 9 limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter over the cited prior art refences; specially when said limitations are viewed in light of applicant’s specification.
Claims 10-18 and 21-25 depends from claim 9. Subsequently, claims 10-18 and 21-25 also include the above noted allowable subject matter in parent claim 9.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s arguments in page 7 of the remarks filed on 02/18/2026, regarding the previously set forth objections to the drawings, all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, said drawing objections has been withdrawn.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in pages 7-8 of the remarks filed on 02/18/2026, regarding the previously set forth rejections to claims 8-12, 14-17, and 19-20, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Resultingly, said 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made for claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
With respect to applicant’s arguments in pages 8-9 of the remarks filed on 02/18/2026, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-18, in view of Byers (U.S. Patent 2,190,013 A), Phelps (U.S. Patent 1,357,345 A), Wheatley (GB671,378 A), Byers and Pitts (U.S. Patent 4,384,685 A), or Byers and Cho et al. (KR20090011512U), all have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, said prior art rejections has been withdrawn.
With respect to applicant’s arguments in pages 8-9 of the remarks filed on 02/18/2026, regarding the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claims 19-20, in view of Nakajima (U.S. Patent 4,840,323 A), all have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for the following reasons:
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the applied reference (e.g. Nakajima). Furthermore, applicant's arguments also fails comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference cited (e.g. Nakajima) or the objections made (in other words, applicant’s arguments do not show how the amendments avoid the disclosure of Nakajima, which is used to formulated the previous/current prior art rejection for claims 19-20). In the subsequent filings, applicant should submit statements pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions, and discuss the references applied against the claims by explaining how the claims avoid the applied references or how the claimed invention is distinguishable from the applied references.
Examiner additionally notes that Nakajima still clearly anticipates all claim 19 limitations as detailed above in the claim 19 rejection statement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See the attached PTO-892 for complete list of pertinent prior art references made of record by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEEN J DIAS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2195. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00AM - 4:30PM, Alternate Fridays.
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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654