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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“without spreading,” in line 2 should read “without the cable spreading,”.
“losing existing” in line 16 should read “losing its existing”.
“away and” in line 11 should read “away from the coiled cable and”.
“oven/tunnel” in line 15 should read “tunnel/oven”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tail end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a tail end”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the winder heads" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a winder head”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the holder apparatus" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a holder apparatus”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shrink film" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a shrink film”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the coil" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the coiled cable”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tail end" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a tail end”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the winding" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “packaging”.
Overall, for examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting claim 1 as if it instead reads as follows:
“A method for fixing a tail end of a cable wound in coil form and packaging the cable without the cable spreading, the method comprising the following process steps:
a coiled cable is taken from a winder head with the help of a holder clamp which holds the coiled cable from a left side, a right side, and a top side of the coiled cable;
the holder clamp is rotated 180° to bring the coiled cable in front of a shrink tunnel/oven and is moved towards a holder apparatus connected to the shrink tunnel/oven;
while the holder clamp moves the coiled cable towards the holder apparatus, the coiled cable passes into a shrink film and is then held by mechanisms of the holder apparatus which compress and press the coiled cable;
after the coiled cable passes into the shrink film and is held by the mechanisms of holder apparatus, the holder clamp is pulled away from the coiled cable and a shrink knife moves down and cuts the shrink film;
after the cutting of the shrink film, the coiled cable enters the shrink tunnel/oven together with the holder apparatus, a tail end of coiled cable with the shrink film passed over it being kept fixed by the holder apparatus; and
the shrink film is shrunk on the coiled cable in the shrink tunnel/oven to complete packaging of the coiled cable without the use of binding material while preventing the coiled cable from losing its existing form.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitations of claim 1 in combination with all the other limitations of claim 1:
“a coiled cable is taken from a winder head with the help of a holder clamp which holds the coiled cable from a left side, a right side, and a top side of the coiled cable;
the holder clamp is rotated 180° to bring the coiled cable in front of a shrink tunnel/oven and is moved towards a holder apparatus connected to the shrink tunnel/oven;
while the holder clamp moves the coiled cable towards the holder apparatus, the coiled cable passes into a shrink film and is then held by mechanisms of the holder apparatus which compress and press the coiled cable;
after the coiled cable passes into the shrink film and is held by the mechanisms of holder apparatus, the holder clamp is pulled away from the coiled cable and a shrink knife moves down and cuts the shrink film;
after the cutting of the shrink film, the coiled cable enters the shrink tunnel/oven together with the holder apparatus”.
The prior art reference considered by the examiner to come closest to teaching the limitations of claim 1 is Lee (KR 20220129815 A).
Lee teaches a method for fixing a tail end (top end in Figure 7) of a cable (100 in Figure 7) wound in coil form and packaging the cable (100) without the cable spreading (Paragraph 0039 of Machine Translation of KR 20220129815 A), the method comprising the following process steps:
a coiled cable (100 in Figure 7) passes into a shrink film (150 in Figure 7) (Paragraphs 0041-0044 of Machine Translation of KR 20220129815 A) and is then held by mechanisms of a holder apparatus (33’ in Figures 8 and 9) (Paragraphs 0052 and 0077 of Machine Translation of KR 20220129815 A);
a shrink knife (24 in Figures 3 and 7) moves down and cuts the shrink film (150) (Paragraph 0045 of Machine Translation of KR 20220129815 A);
after the cutting of the shrink film (150), the coiled cable (100) enters a shrink tunnel/oven (42 in Figure 10) (Paragraphs 0081-0083, 0059, 0060 of Machine Translation of KR 20220129815 A); and
the shrink film (150) is shrunk on the coiled cable (100) in the shrink tunnel/oven (42) to complete packaging of the coiled cable (100) without the use of binding material while preventing the coiled cable (100) from losing its existing form (Paragraphs 0083 and 0060 of Machine Translation of KR 20220129815 A).
However, Lee, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious the combination of limitations shown in quotation marks above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ozturk et al. (WO 2009045181 A1) also teaches heat shrinking a shrink film (51 in Figure 19) covering a coiled cable (45 in Figure 19) in a shrink tunnel/oven (53 in Figure 19) but fails to teach a holder clamp and a holder apparatus as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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). 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.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights