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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV (Figures 14A-14C, claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, 17-19, and 21-30) in the reply filed on 7/29/26 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 13-14, 17-19, and 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11345564 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and of the patent are drawn to the same invention, especially a cable reel with a first wall, a second wall, and a core, but differ only in specificity and obvious wording changes. The invention broadly claimed in this application is obviously encompassed by the claims of the patent.
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 22 and 24-29 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 22 is indefinite and vague. Which element constitutes “fasteners received through two more of the plurality of apertures (713)?” In so far the claim is understood as any material retainer meets the limitations of the claim.
Claims 24 and 29 are indefinite and vague. What constitutes “a transition section?” In so far the claim is understood as any core/hub section connecting the both walls meets the limitations of the claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 9, 13-14, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anger et al., US 2008/0283649 A1.
Regarding claims 1, and 13, Anger ‘649 discloses a cable reel 20 (i.e., plastic molded parts, which is a non-metallic material, see paragraph [0024], claims 9, and 18) comprising: a core section (26, 70) having a width, a first wall 22 coupled to a first end of the core section 70 and extending radially outward a distance from the core, and a second wall 24 coupled to an opposing second end of the core section 70 and extending radially outwardly therefrom, wherein the first wall 22 and the second wall 24 form a gap (w70, see figure 3, claims 2, and 14) therebetween equal to the width of the core, the gap being configured to hold a length of excess cable wrapped around the core (see paragraph [0018], many different types of cables and not limited to a particular one), and wherein the cable reel 20 is formed of a non-metallic material (see paragraph [0024]); and a plurality of apertures 60 around both walls (claim 21); and a cable notch 74 (i.e., web, filament retainer, or anchor fitting, see paragraph [0022]) on the core 70 (claim 22), see figures 1-7.
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 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 10, 23-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anger et al., US 2008/0283649 A1, in view of Kennedy, US D774383S.
Regarding claims 10, 23-24, and 28-30, as stated above, Anger ‘649 shows all the structural elements except for an oval shape and a smooth core section.
Kennedy ‘383 shows an oval shape with a smooth core section/transition section and a monolithic member, see figures 1-6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the reel core of Anger ‘649 to include an oval shape and a smooth core section as suggested by Kennedy ‘383, to show that there are many different shapes that can be used for reels. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 25, as stated above, Anger ‘649 discloses a cable reel 20 (i.e., plastic molded parts, which is a non-metallic material, see paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claims 26, as stated above, Anger ‘649 discloses the first wall 22 and the second wall 24 form a gap (w70, see figure 3) therebetween equal to the width of the core, the gap being configured to hold a length of excess cable wrapped around the core (see paragraph [0018]), but does not explicitly explain the range of how much cable it can hold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the size ranges specified in the claims when making the reel to be able to hold a certain length of the cable. Furthermore, it being well known in the art to size cables and reels to correspond to the nature of the material being wound. It would have been well within the level of skill of one skilled in the art to select the claimed dimensions based on considerations such as the material, size of cables desired, etc.
Claims 6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anger et al., US 2008/0283649 A1.
Regarding claims 6, as stated above, Anger ‘649 discloses the first wall 22 and the second wall 24 form a gap (w70, see figure 3) therebetween equal to the width of the core, the gap being configured to hold a length of excess cable wrapped around the core (see paragraph [0018]), but does not explicitly explain the range of how much cable it can hold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the size ranges specified in the claims when making the reel to be able to hold a certain length of the cable. Furthermore, it being well known in the art to size cables and reels to correspond to the nature of the material being wound. It would have been well within the level of skill of one skilled in the art to select the claimed dimensions based on considerations such as the material, size of cables desired, etc.
Regarding claim 19, as stated above, Anger ‘649 recognizes other many different types of cable can be used and not limited to a particular one.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Anger ‘649 to use trunk cables or jumper cables for the cable reel since the device does not limit other cables. Furthermore, applicant did not invent trunk cables or jumper cables and since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 5, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anger et al., US 2008/0283649 A1, in view of Niu, US 2014/0056683 A1.
As stated above, Anger ‘649 recognizes the concept of stacking reels (see paragraphs [0028]-[0029]), but doesn’t show any apertures for mounting the cable reel.
Niu ‘683 discloses the concept of a plurality of apertures 84 or a plurality of posts 82, 80 or a ring 66 for stacking the cable reels onto a mounting structure (i.e., cargo area of a truck), see figures 1-12. Note, placing the claimed apparatus onto an antenna tower, a bridge or a cabinet is intended use of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Anger ‘649 to include a plurality of apertures and/or posts as suggested by Niu ‘683 to secure the cable reels during stacking and place it on anywhere for applicant to use the device. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anger ‘649, in view of Kennedy ‘383 as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Niu, US 2014/0056683 A1.
As stated above, Anger ‘649 recognizes the concept of stacking reels (see paragraphs [0028]-[0029]), but doesn’t show any apertures for mounting the cable reel.
Niu ‘683 discloses the concept of a plurality of apertures 84 or a plurality of posts 82, 80 or a ring 66 for stacking the cable reels onto a mounting structure (i.e., cargo area of a truck), see figures 1-12. Note, placing the claimed apparatus onto an antenna tower, a bridge or a cabinet is intended use of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Anger ‘649 to include a plurality of apertures and/or posts as suggested by Niu ‘683 to secure the cable reels during stacking and place it on anywhere for applicant to use the device. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. 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).
SK
8/12/26
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights