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 transport device of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is apparent that the connection between the transport device and the container is a necessary limitation as it relies on the claimed end caps. 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: On page 10, paragraph 35, it reads "each of the hand holes 136, 128, 204 and 206", but should read "each of the hand holes 136, 138, 204 and 206" and on page 13, paragraph 42, it reads "a portion of the gross weight of arbor shaft 300 and product reel 314 308" but the "308" should be omitted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eggen (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0315029 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Eggen discloses a container for protecting and dispensing a coil of elongated flexible product (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶29, dispensing device 1), the container comprising:
a carton with a first base panel, the first base panel being disposed in a first vertical plane and disposed at an angle to a horizontal axis (Fig. 1, 5; Pg. 3, ¶¶30-31, container 2 having a side panels 2S);
a second base panel of the carton disposed in a second vertical plane and disposed at an angle to the axis and to be axially displaced from the first base panel, the first and second base panels being similar polygons each with a plurality of sides and the carton being prismatic (Fig. 1, 5; Pg. 3, ¶¶30-31, container 2 having a side panels 2S);
a first arbor hole formed through the first base panel and disposed on the axis, the first arbor hole being circular and having an arbor hole diameter (Fig. 5; Pg. 4, ¶39, reel axle port 2P);
a second arbor hole formed through the second base panel and disposed on the axis, the second arbor hole being circular and having the arbor hole diameter (Fig. 5; Pg. 4, ¶39, reel axle port 2P);
the first and second base panels each having a plurality of sides and each having a closest side to the axis, a first radius measured between the axis and a closest point on the closest side of the first base panel, a second radius measured between the axis and a closest point on the closest side of the second base panel being equal to or less than the first radius (Fig. 1, 5; Pg. 3, ¶¶30-31);
a hollow arbor shaft disposed on the axis and supported by the first and second base panels, an outer surface of the arbor shaft being cylindrical and having an outer diameter selected to be closely received into the first and second arbor holes (Fig. 8; Pg. 7, ¶58, axial bore 3RB and reel spacers 3RO corresponding to an arbor shaft);
a product reel having a spindle, an elongated, flexible product being coiled on the spindle, the spindle having an internal cylindrical surface with an inner diameter that is larger than the outer diameter of the arbor shaft, the spindle rotatably mounted on the arbor shaft, a third radius measured between the axis and an outer circumference of the product reel being less than the second radius (Fig. 1, 5; Pg. 3, ¶¶30-31, reel 3 having coiled conduit C); and
the carton including a plurality of rectangular panels extending between corresponding sides of the first and second base panels, at least one of the rectangular panels being a dispensing panel, an opening in the dispensing panel formed for the dispensing therethrough of the product (Fig. 1, 5; Pg. 3, ¶33, side panel 2N corresponding to a dispensing panel).
Regarding claim 12, Eggen discloses a container for dispensing flexible elongate product (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶29, dispensing device 1), the container comprising:
a first and second prismatic base panel disposed in a respective first and second vertical plane, the first and second base panels disposed at an angle to a horizontal axis, the first base panel being axially displaced from the second base panel, each of the first and second base panels having a vertical center line passing through the axis (Fig. 1, 5; Pg. 3, ¶¶30-31, container 2 having a side panels 2S);
an arbor shaft disposed on the axis and extending from the first base panel to the second base panel (Fig. 8; Pg. 7, ¶58, axial bore 3RB and reel spacers 3RO corresponding to an arbor shaft);
a reel of flexible elongate product having a spindle, the spindle rotatably mounted on the arbor shaft, the reel having a radius, the reel disposed between the first and second base panels (Fig. 1, 5; Pg. 3, ¶¶30-31, reel 3 having coiled conduit C); and
a first and second hand hole formed in the respective first and second panel to be disposed outside of the radius, to a respective first and second side of a vertical center line of the respective first and second panel, and above the axis (Pg. 4, ¶37, hand slots 2H);
whereby a user may grasp the first panel through the first hand hole and the second panel through the second hand hole, a center of mass of the container being located vertically below the and horizontally between the first and second hand holes (Pg. 4, ¶37, hand slots 2H).
Regarding claim 14, Eggen discloses a container for dispensing an elongate flexible product (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶29, dispensing device 1), the container comprising:
a first and second base panel disposed in a respective first and second vertical plane, the first and second vertical planes disposed on a horizontal axis to be axially displaced from each other (Fig. 1, 5; Pg. 3, ¶¶30-31, container 2 having a side panels 2S);
an arbor shaft extending between the first and second base panels and disposed on the axis, the arbor shaft having a cylindrical outer surface (Fig. 8; Pg. 7, ¶58, axial bore 3RB and reel spacers 3RO corresponding to an arbor shaft);
a product reel having a spindle rotatably mounted on the arbor shaft so as to be disposed between the first and second base panels, an outer circumference of the product reel being disposed at or nearer than a first radius from the axis, the product as wound having a product thickness as measured in a radial direction relative to the axis (Fig. 1, 5; Pg. 3, ¶¶30-31, reel 3 having coiled conduit C);
the first and second base panels each having a flat bottom side, a flat bottom panel connecting the bottom sides of the first and second base panels, all of the flat bottom panel being downwardly displaced from the axis by a distance that is greater than the first radius, and the first and second base panels each having a front side, a front panel of the container extending between the front sides of the first and second base panels (Fig. 1, 5; Pg. 3, ¶¶30-31); and
a payout opening formed in the front panel to be disposed below the axis and through which the product may be pulled out of the container and unwound from the reel, a vertical dimension of the payout opening being larger than the sum of the product thickness and a thickness of a human hand, whereby the human hand of a user may be inserted into the container and rotate the reel in a rotational direction downward and away from the payout opening, thereby rewinding the product onto the reel (Pg. 4, ¶37, hand slots 2H).
Regarding claim 16, Eggen discloses further comprising a payout opening door hinged to the front panel, the door adapted to close the payout opening (Pg. 4, ¶37, unreeling port 2R).
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 2-6, 8, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggen (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0315029 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Eggen discloses the claimed invention as well as the device being able to dispense conduits of different sizes (Pg. 7, ¶58), but fails to specify a diameter of the arbor shaft. However, 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 increased the outer diameter of the arbor shaft to at least about 2 7/8 inches or 5 1/2 inches, 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, it is understood that the diameter of the arbor shaft affects performance characteristics such as load bearing capacity, and fit, and is therefore a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the diameter, including increasing it to at least about 2 7/8 inches or 5 ½ inches, to achieve desired performance. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Eggen discloses the claimed invention as well as the device being able to dispense conduits of different sizes (Pg. 7, ¶58), and especially for holding heavy materials (Pg. 5, ¶45), but fails to specify a weight of the material. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device on materials with weights ranging to no more than 29 or 46 pounds, 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, it is understood that the diameter of the arbor shaft affects performance characteristics such as load bearing capacity, and fit, and is therefore a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the device to hold heavy weights, as the device is structured to solve the issue of dispensing heavy loads. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A.
Regarding claim 6, Eggen discloses wherein the first and second base panels are constructed of cardboard (Pg. 3, ¶34), but fails to disclose the cardboard having an ECT rating of at least 48. However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize cardboard having an ECT of at least 48, 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, it is understood that the diameter of the arbor shaft affects performance characteristics such as load bearing capacity, and fit, and is therefore a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the device to hold heavy weights thus requiring high strength cardboard for withstand such load. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A.
Regarding claim 8, Eggen discloses wherein the arbor shaft has a first end disposed adjacent the first base panel and an opposed second end disposed adjacent the second base panel, the container further including first and second end caps for respective insertion in the first and second ends of the arbor shaft, the first and second base panels each having an external surface, the arbor shaft having an interior surface parallel to the axis, each end cap having an insertion portion adapted to be inserted into a respective end of the arbor shaft and a circumferential flange radially outwardly extending from the insertion portion, the circumferential flange of each end cap fitting to the external surface of a respective one of the first and second base panels (Fig. 8; Pg. 4, ¶41, bushings 3B corresponding to end caps receiving axle shaft 11).
Regarding claim 11, Eggen discloses wherein the product is differently sized conduits (Pg. 7, ¶59). While Eggen does not specifically mention a collapsed flexible polymer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the product be a collapsed flexible polymer tube for lining pipes, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance, the invention of Eggen is capable of accepting a variety of differently sized reels and materials while still maintaining its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 15, Eggen discloses wherein the product is differently sized conduits (Pg. 7, ¶59), but fails to disclose a dimension of the payout opening. However, 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 payout opening have a vertical dimension of about 5 to 5 3/16 inches, 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, it is understood that the diameter of the arbor shaft affects performance characteristics such as load bearing capacity, and fit, and is therefore a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art adjust the opening size to receive the material based off its dimensions. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggen (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0315029 A1) as applied to claims 1-8, 11-12, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Galgano et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,016,222 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Eggen discloses wherein each end cap further has a central hole disposed on the axis, the central hole adapted to receive a connection rod for fastening the container (Fig. 8; Pg. 4, ¶41, bushings 3B corresponding to end caps receiving axle shaft 11), but fails to disclose a connection to a transport device. However, Galgano et al. teaches the connection of the device to a transportation device for transporting the carton (Fig. 5-8; Col. 6, Ln. 33-38, the cart 500 having support rods 522, 524, and 526 as a connection). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a transport device to transfer the containers as it will reduce the strain on the user from relocating the container, thus allowing for ease of transport.
Regarding claim 13, Eggen discloses a first and second hand hole formed in the respective first and second panel to be disposed outside of the radius, to a respective first and second side of a vertical center line of the respective first and second panel, and above the axis (Pg. 4, ¶37, hand slots 2H), but fails to discloses a third and fourth hand hole formed on the first and second panels. However, Galgano et al. teaches a third and fourth hand hole (Col. 9, Ln. 4-20, slots 902A, B and 906A, B). Although the hand holes of Galgano et al. are not disposed on the first and second panels, it should be noted that the teaching of more than two hand holes is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it would provide additional access to the reel as well as additional lifting points for heavy reels.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggen (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0315029 A1) as applied to claims 1-8, 11-12, and 14-16 above, and further in view of Galgano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0320309 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Eggen discloses the claimed invention except for a first and second support sheet. However, Galgano et al. teaches further comprising a first support sheet similar in size and shape to the first base panel and having a first support sheet arbor hole disposed on the axis and corresponding to the first arbor hole, the first support sheet disposed between the first base panel and the product reel (Fig. 2; Pg. 3, ¶34 first support panel 200); and
a second support sheet similar in size and shape to the second base panel and having a second support sheet arbor hole disposed on the axis and corresponding to the second arbor hole, the second support sheet disposed between the second base panel and the product reel, the arbor shaft received in the first and second support sheet arbor holes, whereby the first and second support sheets each support a portion of a weight of the arbor shaft and a weight of the product reel (Fig. 2; Pg. 3, ¶35 second support panel 220). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide first and second support sheets to the container in order to improve the structural rigidity of the invention and to further allow for heavier loads.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art reference refers to cardboard containers which comprise the dimensions and limitation of the claimed invention. Any combination of the cited reference along with the filed IDS would prove obvious to combine and produced the presented 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
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights