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 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 13 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.
Specifically, the method steps are unclear. When in the process is the barrel rolled? At the beginning prior to starting? During winding, if the barrel shifts? When there is an issue, and the winding has to be stopped? Applicant provides no guidance as to when this occurs, and as such, the limitations are unclear.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vazquez et al (4491284).
In regards to Claim 1, Vazquez teaches a wire barrel packing system for loading wire into a barrel that ensures wire is loaded evenly within the barrel, the system comprising:
a frame (Details 4, 9) within which a barrel (Detail 15) is positioned for receiving a wire (Detail 17);
a turntable (Detail 6) on which the barrel is placed, wherein the turntable is configured to rotate (by Detail 11) the barrel as wire is fed into the barrel; and
a capstan (Details 19, 19ʹ, 20, 20ʹ) configured to pull the wire from a feeder (Detail 34) and feed the wire into the barrel, wherein the capstan is configured to move relative to the frame and the turntable (Double arrow in Figure 1) as wire is fed into the barrel.
In regards to Claim 2, Vazquez teaches the capstan comprises a belt wrap capstan (Details 20, 20ʹ are belts).
In regards to Claim 3, Vazquez teaches the system further comprises a wire landing guide (Detail 35) configured to guide the wire as the wire is fed from the capstan into the barrel.
In regards to Claim 4, Vazquez teaches the wire landing guide is positioned perpendicular to a bottom surface of the barrel (See Figure 1).
In regards to Claim 5, Vazquez teaches the capstan is configured to move vertically with respect to the frame and the turntable (Double arrow in Figure 1).
In regards to Claim 6, Vazquez teaches the capstan is raised vertically with respect to the frame and the turntable as wire is fed into a barrel, and wherein the capstan is lowered vertically with respect to the frame and the turntable prior to loading a new barrel (Claim 6 is not a method claim; that said, two processes in series would read upon the limitation as the capstan would raise and lower during the first process, prior to the second process, which would load a new barrel).
In regards to Claim 7, Vazquez teaches the capstan is configured to move vertically with respect to the frame and the turntable to position a wire landing guide within a pre-determined distance from a bottom of the barrel or a top of the wire loaded into the barrel (Double arrow in Figure 1).
In regards to Claim 10, Vazquez teaches the system further comprises a motor (Detail 24) and a set of rails (Details 8, 8ʹ) attached to the frame, wherein the motor is configured to cause movement of the capstan along the set of rails.
In regards to Claim 11, Vazquez teaches the system further comprises one or more devices or sensors configured to monitor the loading of the wire into the barrel (Column 7, lines 4-11: limit switch).
In regards to Claim 12, Vazquez teaches a method of loading wire into a barrel using a wire barrel packing system that prevents gaps and an uneven laying of the wire, the method comprising:
positioning a capstan (Details 19, 19ʹ, 20, 20ʹ) over a barrel (Detail 15);
feeding a wire (Detail 17) into the barrel using the capstan, wherein a turntable (Detail 6) on which the barrel is positioned is rotated as wire is fed into the barrel;
monitoring the wire being fed into the barrel via the capstan (limit switch controls capstan); and
adjusting the loading of the wire into the barrel based on the monitoring of the wire being fed into the barrel via the capstan (winding is stopped when limit switch triggered).
In regards to Claim 14, Vazquez teaches positioning the capstan over the barrel comprises raising or lowering the capstan to a pre-determined distance from a bottom of the barrel or wire loaded into the barrel (Double arrow in Figure 1).
In regards to Claim 15, Vazquez teaches the pre-determined distance comprises a distance between a bottom of a wire landing guide associated with the capstan and the bottom of the barrel or a top of the wire loaded into the barrel (Figure 1 shows this distance).
In regards to Claim 16, Vazquez teaches adjusting the loading of the wire into the barrel comprises adjusting a rotational speed of the turntable (if the winding is stopped, the rotation speed of the turntable will be adjusted to zero since winding is complete).
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henning (2929577).
In regards to Claim 1, Henning teaches a wire barrel packing system for loading wire into a barrel that ensures wire is loaded evenly within the barrel, the system comprising:
a frame (Detail 115 and unlabeled downward side walls) within which a barrel (Detail 110) is positioned for receiving a wire (Detail 111);
a turntable (Detail 200) on which the barrel is placed, wherein the turntable is configured to rotate the barrel as wire is fed into the barrel; and
a capstan (Detail 119) configured to pull the wire from a feeder (Detail 117) and feed the wire into the barrel, wherein the capstan is configured to move relative to the frame and the turntable (rotates about Detail 117) as wire is fed into the barrel.
In regards to Claim 2, Henning teaches the capstan comprises a belt wrap capstan (Detail 127).
In regards to Claim 3, Henning teaches the system further comprises a wire landing guide (Detail 171) configured to guide the wire as the wire is fed from the capstan into the barrel.
In regards to Claim 4, Henning teaches the wire landing guide is positioned perpendicular to a bottom surface of the barrel (Figure 1 shows Detail 171 positioned as claimed).
In regards to Claim 8, Henning teaches the capstan is configured to move horizontally with respect to the frame and the turntable (rotation would move capstan from front to back, which would be horizontal).
In regards to Claim 9, Henning teaches the capstan is moved inwardly and outwardly horizontally to cause the wire to be laid evenly within the barrel in a helical manner (rotation would move the capstan inward and outward from position to position by rotation; it would start inward, and after rotation, would be in the outward position).
In regards to Claim 11, Henning teaches the system further comprises one or more devices or sensors configured to monitor the loading of the wire into the barrel (Detail 129).
In regards to Claim 12, Henning teaches a method of loading wire into a barrel using a wire barrel packing system that prevents gaps and an uneven laying of the wire, the method comprising:
positioning a capstan (Detail 119) over a barrel (Detail 110);
feeding a wire (Detail 111) into the barrel using the capstan, wherein a turntable (Detail 200) on which the barrel is positioned is rotated as wire is fed into the barrel;
monitoring the wire being fed into the barrel via the capstan (Detail 129 controls tension as part of capstan); and
adjusting the loading of the wire into the barrel based on the monitoring of the wire being fed into the barrel via the capstan (Figure 2 shows speed changes based on Detail 129).
In regards to Claim 16, Henning teaches adjusting the loading of the wire into the barrel comprises adjusting a rotational speed of the turntable (Figure 2 shows speed changes based on Detail 129).
In regards to Claim 17, Henning teaches adjusting the loading of the wire into the barrel comprises moving the capstan inwardly and outwardly horizontally relative to the barrel to cause the wire to be laid evenly within the barrel in a helical manner (rotation would move the capstan inward and outward from position to position by rotation; it would start inward, and after rotation, would be in the outward position).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez in view of Marangoni (WO 2007012476).
In regards to Claim 13, while Vazquez essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach rolling the barrel onto the turntable. Marangoni, however, teaches that it is well known to roll barrels into position for winding (Figure 3, Detail 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rolled the barrel of Vazquez as taught by Marangoni, so as to make it easier to move. The device of Marangoni would make the barrel able to slide instead of lift, easing transport.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henning in view of Marangoni (WO 2007012476).
In regards to Claim 13, while Henning essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach rolling the barrel onto the turntable. Marangoni, however, teaches that it is well known to roll barrels into position for winding (Figure 3, Detail 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rolled the barrel of Henning as taught by Marangoni, so as to make it easier to move. The device of Marangoni would make the barrel able to slide instead of lift, easing transport.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Specifically, at least Cooper (20200307899) Figure 2, Carroscia (20070051649) Figure 3A, Melfi et al (20060266794) Figure 1, Hsu (7004419) Figure 4, Matsushima et al (5506381) Figures, and Kitselman (3331566) Figure 8 teach elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732