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 and specification received on May 26th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 24, 29, and 31 have been amended and claims 25 and 32 have been canceled. Objections to the specification filed on February 26th, 2026 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 and 9, filed May 26th, 2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings and the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claim 42 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of February 26th, 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed May 26th, 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection claims 24,26-31 and 33-43 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding amended claim 24, that Moreau (EP 3598595 A1) fails to teach the retaining rollers 4 (corresponding to the plurality of restraining elements) being spaced away from a surface of the rotatable reel. Applicant specifically states that the retaining rollers 4 of Moreau make direct contact with the cable surface as stated in paragraph 20 of the prior art. While this is true, it should be noted that the claim limitation specifically requires that restraining elements are spaced away from a surface of the “rotatable reel” and not the cable. Although the cable and the retaining rollers 4 of Moreau interact, one skilled in the art can understand the surface of the rotatable reel as the portion on which the cable lies. It should be pointed that the surface of the cable winding receiver 3 (corresponding to the rotatable reel) is disposed below the cable CE and it is the surface of said cable that contacts the retaining rollers 4 and NOT the surface of the cable winding receiver 3. With the understanding of the spacing between the retaining rollers 4 and the winding receiver 3 of Moreau, one having ordinary skill in the art may incorporate such elements onto the reel of Theiss (WO 020201348 A1) to prevent the cable from being misaligned and doing so would not impede on the overall function the reel device of Theiss as the retaining rollers of Moreau are indeed spaced from the rotatable reel which allow for the cable to pass through.
Applicant further argues, regarding claims 39-43, that Theiss fails to disclose an indexing wheel that maintains continuous contact with the spiral separator. It is understood that the indexing wheel keeps the alignment of the cable, however, claims 39-43 fail to disclose or state the limitation of continuous contact stated in the applicant’s paragraph 32. The mentioned claims merely state that the indexing wheel is for “indexing” which is understood to simply mean alignment. In the instance of Theiss, the guide head 14A keeps the cable in alignment due to the gear disposed at the end of the spindle drive 14B as it moves linearly which is depicted in figure 2C. It is further emphasized that 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.
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.
Claims 24, 26-31, and 33-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theiss (WO 2020201348 A1) in view of Moreau (EP 3598595 A1).
Regarding claims 24, 26, 35, 37-39, 43, Theiss discloses an cable reel assembly for storing a cable to be dispensed (Fig 1; Pg. 1, ¶¶1-3), the cable reel assembly comprising a rotatable reel for storing the cable in a coiled configuration along a length of the rotatable reel, the rotatable reel including a cylindrical body extending along a first longitudinal axis and a spiral separator extending around the cylindrical body, the rotatable reel being rotatable about the first longitudinal axis (Fig. 1A-B; Pg. 18, ¶¶128-129, cylindrical winding drum 12, corresponding to a cylindrical rotatable reel, and profiling 13, corresponding to a spiral separator), wherein the rotatable reel is operably driven by a motor (Pg. 19, ¶¶133-135, drive device 16 being motor driven as disclosed in Pg. 14, ¶103), wherein a cable receiving space being defined between adjacent sections of the spiral separator (as depicted in Fig. 1A-B), and a cable carriage movable along a second longitudinal axis parallel to the first longitudinal axis for guiding the cable to or from the cable receiving space, the cable carriage including an indexing wheel for indexing with the spiral separator, wherein rotation of the rotatable reel causes rectilinear motion of the cable carriage along the second longitudinal axis, wherein rotation of the rotatable reel causes movement of the cable carriage (Fig. 1A; Pg. 18, ¶130, guide head 14A corresponding to a cable carriage depicting as having an indexing wheel as stated in Pg. 18-19, ¶132).
Theiss discloses the claimed invention except for the cable restraining means. Moreau teaches a rotatable cable restraining means for restraining movement of the cable in the coiled configuration away from the first longitudinal axis during unwinding of the cable from the rotatable reel, the rotatable cable restraining means comprising a cable restraining cage having a plurality of restraining elements disposed around the rotatable reel, each restraining element of the plurality of restraining elements being spaced away from a surface of the rotatable reel, wherein the rotatable reel is disposed within the cable restraining means (depicted in Fig. 1-2 and in Pg. 5, ¶20, wherein the six retaining rollers 4 correspond to the restraining means and each individual roller corresponds to a restraining element connected to the frame BAT as mentioned in Pg. 5, ¶17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Moreau, in combination with the cable reel assembly from Theiss as such a modification would provide a means for holding down the wound cable.
Regarding claims 27-30, Theiss discloses the claimed invention except for the restraining elements being rotatable rollers. Moreau teaches wherein the restraining elements are rollers, and wherein the cable restraining means is freely rotatable, and counter rotates with respect to the rotatable reel (Fig. 1; Pg. 5, ¶20, retaining rollers 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Moreau, to have the restraining elements as rollers as such a modification would allow for near frictionless rotation so as to not impede on the overall rotation of the assembly.
Regarding claim 31, Theiss discloses a cable reel housing which encompasses the reel and component (Fig. 1; Pg. 18, ¶128, frame 11), but fails to disclose the restraining cage. However, as previously taught, Moreau teaches the cable restraining cage (Fig. 1-2: Pg. 5, ¶20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Moreau, in combination with the frame from Theiss as such a modification would provide a support system to hold the assembly together. The resulting combination would include mounting the restraining cage, taught by Moreau, within the housing of Theiss and result in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 33, Theiss discloses wherein a cable aperture extends through the cylindrical body into an inner cavity for allowing the cable to travel from the inner cavity to a space external to the cylindrical body wherein a portion of the cable is fixed to the rotatable reel. (Fig. 2; Pg. 23, ¶165, the drum 12 being hollow and having recess 15 to accept a cable).
Regarding claim 34, Theiss discloses wherein the cable is only wound around the rotatable reel once (depicted in Fig. 1A). While Theiss doesn’t necessary disclose an amount of windings, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cable wound fully one time, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. In this instance such a modification would be advantageous to preventing any form of entanglement between the wound layers. Note SEE MPEP 2144.05 (II) A.
Regarding claim 36, Theiss discloses wherein the spiral separator extends substantially orthogonally from a surface of the cylindrical body, a spiral wall of the spiral separator extending by substantially the same distance as a thickness of the cable (Pg. 18, ¶¶128-129, profiling 13 extending orthogonally and having spiral walls depicted in Fig. 1A-B allowing for the fitting of the cable).
Regarding claims 40-42, Theiss discloses further comprising a carriage shaft disposed on the second longitudinal axis, the cable carriage being movably mounted to the carriage shaft (Fig. 1A; Pg. 18, ¶¶130-131, guide head 14A mounted on drive 14B, corresponding to a carriage shaft), wherein the indexing wheel comprises a central spindle with a concave surface for interfacing with the cable and an indexing flange disposed at each end of the central spindle (best depicted in Fig. 1A & 1C). Theiss discloses the claimed invention except for defining a distance between the indexing flanges. As of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the indexing flanges spaced apart by a predetermined distance, wherein the predetermined distance is larger than a distance between adjacent sections of the spiral separator (best depicted in Fig. 1A & 1C), since applicant has stated that the predetermined distance is to allow the indexing wheel to always stay in contact with two adjacent sections of the spiral separator (see applicant’s specification Pg. 11, Ln. 3-4), it appears that the invention would perform- equally well with flange arrangements of Theiss as its function is to maintain contact and guiding of the cable (Pg. 18, ¶130).
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 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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights