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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the restraining cage of claims 25, 31, and 43 and the must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, line 29 states ". 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 42 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the indexing flanges" in the second line of the claim. There is no indication within the previous claim disclosing a plurality of indexing flanges. It is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to introduce a new limitation or if there was an attempt to refer to a previously stated element. The examiner suggests that the applicant either changes “the” to “an” or clarify the intent of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 24-43 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 claims 32-33, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references refer to cable reels which comprise similar embodiments to that of the claimed invention.
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
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619