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 because Fig. 12 contains excessive text/labels that constitute descriptive matter rather than necessary labeling. Drawings must not contain descriptive text except for a few short words indispensable for understanding. The applicant must remove the improper text from the drawings. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: "one the pair axel mounts" should read "one of the pair of axel mounts" in claim 6, "one of the one of the other mount walls" should read "one of the other mount walls" in claim 16, and “center wall” in claim 16 is missing an article and it is suggested that the applicant uses “a” to introduce the element. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-19 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ridged” in claims 1, 5, 14, and 17 is used by the claim to mean “rigid,” while the accepted meaning is “a groove or an elevated body part or structure.” In this instance, the claim repeatedly calls either the axel component or an axel “ridged”. It is understood that both the elements describe a rod-like structure which holds the spools. There is no indication that show or describe the axle to have “a groove or an elevated body part or structure.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The term “equal plurality” in claims 10 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “equal plurality” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instance, "equal plurality" is describing an amount of wire spools. However, it is unclear what the applicant is intending to mean when referring to an "equal plurality". Does this mean a worker pulls all the spools, some of the spools, or spools in a certain orientation? There is no quantifiable weight to this term.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 14, 17 recite the limitation "the axel" in pages 1-4. Each instance of the limitation fails to introduce said limitation previously in the same claim or in the claim in which it depends on, thus the first instance of the limitation should read “an axel” or clarify whether it has been previously disclosed. If it has been previously introduced, then amendments to the limitation must be made to keep the consistency and prevent misinterpretation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 6, 8, and 18-19 recite the limitation "a wire spool" on pages 1-4. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the previously introduced element or if they are attempting to introduce a new limitation. If it is the first scenario, then the limitation should read "the wire spool".
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards to as the invention. The claims are drafted in a form that suggest dependency (e.g., the use of “wherein” or similar language), but do not include a reference to any preceding claim as required for dependent claims. Accordingly, it is unclear whether these claims are intended to be independent or dependent, and the scope of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. For the presented Office Action, it has been assumed that the claims depend on claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “all of the mount walls” on page 3. It is unclear what is encompassed by “all of the mount walls”, because the claim does not clearly identify or enumerate the mount walls to which the phrase refers. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand the scope of the claim.
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation “two pairs” and “the other two pairs” on page 4. It is unclear how the pairs are distinguished, and the relational limitations do not clearly define the structure. Clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "an axel" on page 4. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the previously introduced element or if they are attempting to introduce a new limitation. If it is the latter, then the limitation should read "the axel".
Claims 4, 9, 12, and 16 are also rejected as they depend on rejected claims.
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galgano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0320309 A1) in view of Dorais et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0163667 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Galgano et al. discloses A wire dispensing storage container (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, ¶32, container 100) comprises a pair of vertically extending mount walls spaced from each other (Fig. 2; Pg. 3, ¶¶34-35, support panels 200, 220) and defining a pair of axel mounts (Fig. 2; Pg. 3, ¶¶34-35, axle holes 210A-D, 222A-D) for at least one ridged axel component that can extend through a central opening in a wire spool to mount the wire spool within the container while allowing the wire spool to rotate about the axel for dispensing of wire from the wire spool and the container by a worker (Fig. 2; Pg. 3, ¶¶34-35, axles 202, 212), one of the axel mounts defined in one of the mount walls and the other of the axel mounts defined in the other of the mount walls (Fig. 2; Pg. 3, ¶¶34-35). The wire dispensing storage container further comprises a bottom wall extending between the pair of mount walls (Fig. 1-2; Pg. 2, ¶32, bottom panel 112), a back wall extending between the pair of mount walls (Fig. 1-2; Pg. 2, ¶32, back depicted opposite the front panel 114), and a lid extending between the pair of mount walls (F Fig. 1-2; Pg. 2, ¶32, a lid indicated where carton 102 points).
Galgano et al. discloses the process of opening the storage container (Pg. 4, ¶48), but fails to particularly point out wherein the lid pivots between an open and closed positions. However, Dorais et al. teaches the lid mounted to pivot between an open and closed position and wherein in the closed position the lid covers the top opening and in the open position the lid exposes the top opening (Fig. 2; Pg. 2, ¶38). Therefore, 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 Dorais et al., in combination with the container from Galgano et al. as such a modification would provide ease of access to the spool for replacement. The invention of Galgano et al. already suggests the container has a pivotable lid as the box is a carton which is known to have a means to open and close a top panel.
Regarding claims 2-3, 6-7, and 18-19, Galgano et al. discloses wherein the axel mounts are configured to allow both the axel and a wire spool carried thereon to be removed from the container by a worker and to be installed into the container by a worker via a horizontally facing front opening and/or via a vertically upwardly facing top opening in the container (Pg. 4, ¶¶48-49). The operation of replacing the wire spool presented by Galgano et al. describes the axel mounts been taken out and separated, and thus describing both a horizontal and vertical opening in both the front and top direction.
Regarding claim 5, Galgano et al. discloses wherein the mount walls further define an additional pair of axel mounts for at least one additional ridged axel component that can extend through a central opening in an additional wire spool (Fig. 2; Pg. 3, ¶¶34-35, axle holes 210A-D, 222A-D) to mount the additional wire spool within the container while allowing the wire spool to rotate about the additional ridged axel for dispensing of wire from the additional wire spool and the container by a worker, one of the additional axel mounts defined in one of the mount walls and the other of the additional axel mounts defined in the other of the mount walls (Fig. 2; Pg. 3, ¶¶34-35, axles 202, 212).
Regarding claim 8, Galgano et al. discloses wherein the container further comprises axel mounts that allow an axel to extend through the container, with opposite ends of axel extending in opposite directions from the container, with each of the opposite ends capable of mounting a wire spool for rotation so that wire can be dispensed from the wire spool by a worker (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶36, hole 154 corresponding to an axel mount that accepts support member 172 corresponding to an axel).
Regarding claim 9, Galgano et al. discloses further comprises axel mounts that allow a pair of the containers to be spaced from each other with opposite ends of an axel mounted in each of the spaced containers and at least one wire spool mounted on the axel for rotation so that wire can be dispensed from the wire spool by a worker (Fig. 9; Pg. 4, ¶¶50-51).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Galgano et al. discloses further comprising at least one wire pulling guide configured to guide a plurality of wires from an equal plurality of wire spools in the container as the wires are dispensed from the container by a worker (Fig. 8; Pg. 3, ¶39, thumb hole 174).
Regarding claim 11, Galgano et al. discloses wherein the at least one wire pulling guide is configured to allow the wires to be dispensed when a worker is pulling the wire in a direction that is non-perpendicular to the rotational axis of the wire spool from which the wire is being dispensed (Fig. 8; Pg. 3, ¶39, thumb hole 174).
Regarding claim 13, Galgano et al. discloses wherein the another container is another one of the wire dispensing storage containers and each of the containers can be carrying a plurality of wire spools, with each wire spool mounted in a dispensing condition (Fig. 1-2; Pg. 3, ¶36).
Regarding claim 14, Galgano et al. discloses further comprising an additional vertically extending mount wall spaced from the other mount walls and in combination with one of the other mount walls defining an additional pair of axel mounts for at least one additional ridged axel component that can extend through a central opening in an additional wire spool to mount the additional wire spool within the container (Fig. 9; Pg. 4, ¶¶50-51, reel caddies 920, 930, 940, 950, 976, 984) while allowing the additional wire spool to rotate about the axel for dispensing of wire from the additional wire spool and the container by a worker, one of the additional axel mounts defined in the additional vertically extending mount wall and the other of the additional axel mounts defined in the one of the other mount walls (Fig. 9; Pg. 4, ¶62).
Regarding claim 15, Galgano et al. discloses wherein the bottom wall extends between all of the mount walls, the back wall extends between all of the mount walls, and the lid extends between all of the mount walls (Fig. 1-2; Pg. 2, ¶32).
Regarding claim 16, Galgano et al. discloses wherein one of the one of the other mount walls is center wall, and the remaining two mount walls are side walls spaced on either side of the center wall (Fig. 9; Pg. 4, ¶¶50-51, reel caddies 920, 930, 940, 950, 976, 984).
Regarding claim 17, Galgano et al. discloses A wire dispensing storage container comprisingthree vertically extending mount walls spaced from each other and defining four pairs of axel mounts configured in the container to allow four separate wire spools to be mounted at the same time and for wire to be dispensed from each of the four wire spools at the same time by a worker (Fig. 9; Pg. 4, ¶¶50-51, reel caddies 920, 930, 940, 950, 976, 984), and each pair of the four pairs of axel mounts configured to support a ridged axel component that can extend through a central opening in a wire spool to mount the wire spool within the container while allowing the wire spool to rotate about the axel for dispensing of wire from the wire spool and the container by a worker (Fig. 9; Pg. 4-5, ¶¶53-55, bushings 922-952). The wire dispensing storage container further comprises a bottom wall, a back wall, and a lid extending between the mount walls (Fig. 9; Pg. 4, ¶¶50).
Galgano et al. discloses the process of opening the storage container (Pg. 4, ¶48), but fails to particularly point out wherein the lid pivots between an open and closed positions. However, Dorais et al. teaches the lid mounted to pivot between an open and closed position and wherein in the closed position the lid covers the top opening and in the open position the lid exposes the top opening (Fig. 2; Pg. 2, ¶38). Reasons to have incorporate the teachings of Dorais et al. to the invention of Galgano et al. are above and are reincorporated.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galgano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0320309 A1) in view of Dorais et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0163667 A1) as applied to claims 1-11 and 13-20 above, and further in view of Galgano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0318939 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Galgano et al. ‘309 fails to disclose wherein the containters are stackable. However, Galgano et al. ‘939 teaches wherein the wire dispensing container is configured so that the wire dispensing container can be stacked on top of another container, with a releasable connection securing the two containers in the stacked position (Fig. 1-4; Pg. 3, ¶36; Pg. 4. ¶44, holder 340 allowing for the stacking of the container in a releasable manner). Therefore, 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 Galgano et al. ‘939, in combination with the container from Galgano et al. ‘309 as such a modification would provide ease of storage as well as the capability to store a large amount of wire reels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references pertain to wire spool containers which accommodate more than one wire spool. The references further include features such as stickability and the ability to replace or remove an axle with its wire spool.
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
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654