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 Objections
Claims 4 and objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 4, line 5 and claim 11, line 5, it appears there is a typographical error and “ in a distance” should read “at a distance”. 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 2 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “an offset angle” in line 2 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to the same offset angle of claim 1, or a different offset angle. For the purpose of examination, Examiner assumes applicant intends to refer to the same offset angle as claimed in claim 1.
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) 1-2, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakayama, JP-S6169668A.
Regarding independent claim 1, Nakayama discloses a method for winding a cable onto a cable reel (Fig. 1, 2), the method comprising the steps of: providing a cable reel having a drum arranged between two end flanges (3, Fig. 1), the drum having a longitudinal axis (l, Fig. 1), and placing the cable on the drum to form a plurality of continuous helical windings on the drum (placing cable 2 on drum 3 to form helical windings shown in Fig. 2), wherein main bending axes of the continuous helical windings and the longitudinal axis of the drum enclose an offset angle greater than zero (theta, Fig. 1, 2theta, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Nakayama discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the main bending axes of the windings and the longitudinal axis enclose an offset angle in the range of 20° to 60° (30 degrees, Page 3, line 10; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Nakayama discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the end flanges are fixedly attached to the drum (flanges fixedly attached to drum, 3, Fig. 1, 2), wherein the step of placing the cable comprises rotating the cable reel about a rotational axis and guiding the cable onto the drum (Reel 3 is rotated about axis theta or 2theta from l, Figs. 1&2), and wherein the rotational axis and the longitudinal axis are not parallel to each other (Rotational axis, theta, 2theta, is not parallel to longitudinal axis, l, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Nakayama discloses the limitations of claim 7, and wherein the rotational axis (theta, 2theta from l, Figs. 1&2) is parallel to a main bending axis of at least one of the continuous helical windings (Theta is parallel to bending axis of helical winding of cord 2, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tunis et al., US1559133.
Regarding independent claim 9, Tunis et al. discloses a cable reel (Fig. 3), comprising: two parallel end flanges (1, 7 and 2, 8, Fig. 1), and a drum arranged between the end flanges (3, 4, 5, 6, Fig. 2, 4), wherein the cable reel has a longitudinal axis (center of 1, 2, parallel to 3, 4, 5, 6, Fig. 3, 4), and wherein the end flanges and a reference plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis enclose an offset angle greater than zero (Fig. 1 shows offset angle greater than zero between end flanges 1, 2, and plane perpendicular to longitudinal axis, 4, Fig. 1) at least in a transportation state of the cable reel (Page 1, lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 10, Tunis et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9, and wherein the end flanges and the drum are configured to permanently maintain the offset angle enclosed by the end flanges and the reference plane (Page 1, lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 11, Tunis et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9, and wherein the drum comprises a plurality of elongated support elements that are distributed around the longitudinal axis (3, 4, 5, 6, Fig. 3, 4), wherein each elongated support element extends parallelly to the longitudinal axis from one of the end flanges to the other one of the end flanges in a distance to the longitudinal axis (3, 4, 5, 6, extend from flange 1 to flange 2 and are equidistant from longitudinal axis, Fig. 3, 4), and wherein each elongated support element is hingedly coupled with both end flanges (hingedly coupled via 9, and 10, Fig. 2), such that the cable reel is skewable about a skewing axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis to be brought into the transportation state or into a winding state (skewable about longitudinal axis Fig. 2; Page 1, lines 9-13), wherein in the winding state the end flanges and the reference plane are parallel (flanges 1, 2 are parallel to reference plane, and perpendicular to longitudinal axis during use, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Tunis et al. discloses the limitations of claim 11, and wherein the support elements are connected to the end flanges by hinges (9, 10, Fig. 3), wherein at least some of the hinges are lockable in the transportation state (Page 1, line 102 - Page 2, line 3).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama, JP-S6169668A in view of Rohner, US4213582.
Regarding claim 3, Nakayama discloses the limitations of claim 1, and the windings are formed.
Nakayama does not disclose the windings are formed to create an oval projection on a reference plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Rohner teaches a method of winding cable on a drum, wherein the windings are formed to create an oval projection on a reference plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 5, 6, 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and one would have been motivated to modify the method of Nakayama to create the oval projection as taught by Rohner, because it is "possible to transport both elongated material having a permissible outer bending diameter larger than the width or height of the available transport space, and material shipped in one piece in lengths greater than those permissible for transport by means of customary drums" (Column 1, lines 32-38).
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama, JP-S6169668A in view of Tunis et al., US1559133.
Regarding claim 4, Nakayama discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the step of placing the cable comprises winding the cable onto the drum in a winding state of the cable reel (winding on drum, Fig. 1), in which the end flanges are arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (end flanges of 3 are perpendicular to longitudinal axis l, Fig. 1).
Nakayama does not disclose wherein the drum comprises a plurality of elongated support elements that are distributed around the longitudinal axis, wherein each elongated support element extends parallelly to the longitudinal axis from one of the end flanges to the other one of the end flanges in a distance to the longitudinal axis, wherein each elongated support element is hingedly coupled with both end flanges, such that the cable reel can be skewed around a skewing axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and skewing the cable reel around the skewing axis to slant the end flanges and move the support elements to form the offset angle in a transportation state of the cable reel.
Tunis et al. teaches a method for winding cable on a drum, wherein the drum comprises a plurality of elongated support elements that are distributed around the longitudinal axis (3, 4, 5, 6, Fig. 3, 4), wherein each elongated support element extends parallelly to the longitudinal axis from one of the end flanges to the other one of the end flanges in a distance to the longitudinal axis (3, 4, 5, 6, extend from flange 1 to flange 2 and are equidistant from longitudinal axis, Fig. 3, 4), and wherein each elongated support element is hingedly coupled with both end flanges (hingedly coupled via 9, and 10, Fig. 2), such that the cable reel can be skewed around a skewing axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (skewable about longitudinal axis Fig. 2; Page 1, lines 9-13), and skewing the cable reel around the skewing axis to slang the end flanges and move the support elements to form an offset angle in a transportation state of the cable reel (Page 1, lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and one would have been motivated to combine the methods of Nakayama to and Tunis et al. "to provide a simple and convenient reel which may be folded for storage, shipment and the like" (Page 1, lines 9-13; Tunis et al.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nakayama discloses the limitations of claim 4, and the method of winding a cable on a drum.
Nakayama does not disclose comprising the step of locking the end flanges and the elongated support elements relative to each other in the transportation state.
Tunis et al. teaches a method of winding cable on a drum, comprising the step of locking the end flanges and the elongated support elements relative to each other in the transportation state (Page 1, line 102 - Page 2, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and one would have been motivated to combine the methods of Nakayama to and Tunis et al. "to provide a simple and convenient reel which may be folded for storage, shipment and the like" (Page 1, lines 9-13; Tunis et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Nakayama discloses the method of claim 1, and a system for winding a cable onto a cable reel (1, 2, 3, Fig. 1), comprising: a cable reel with two parallel end flanges (3, Fig. 1), and a drum arranged between the end flanges (3, Fig. 1), wherein the cable reel has a longitudinal axis (l, Fig. 1, 2), a rotation device to hold and rotate the cable reel about a rotational axis (Page 3, line 17- Page 4, line 2), and a cable feed apparatus for feeding the cable onto the cable reel (1, Fig. 1), wherein the system is configured to conduct the method (Page 2, lines 1-2).
Nakayama does not disclose and wherein the end flanges and a reference plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis enclose an offset angle greater than zero at least in a transportation state of the cable reel.
Tunis et al. teaches a method for winding a cable on a reel, wherein the end flanges and a reference plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis enclose an offset angle greater than zero (Fig. 1 shows offset angle greater than zero between end flanges 1, 2, and plane perpendicular to longitudinal axis, 4, Fig. 1) at least in a transportation state of the cable reel (Page 1, lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and one would have been motivated to combine the methods of Nakayama to and Tunis et al. "to provide a simple and convenient reel which may be folded for storage, shipment and the like" (Page 1, lines 9-13; Tunis et al.).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tunis et al., US1559133 in view of Rohner, US4213582.
Regarding claim 13, Tunis et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9, and the cable reel.
Tunis et al. does not disclose wherein a projection of the drum onto the reference plane follows an oval shape in the transportation state.
Rohner teaches a cable reel wherein a projection of the drum onto the reference plane follows an oval shape in the transportation state (Figs. 5, 6, 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and one would have been motivated to modify the cable reel of Tunis et al. to have the oval shape projection in the transportation state as taught by Rohner to permit "transportation of material in wound form, which has a bending radius in excess of that which is usually considered as the upper limit for transportation in that such material can be wound in accordance with the bending radius, with the height or width of the wound material then being reduced by the folding mechanism in accordance with the invention, and without exerting excess deforming force on the individual turns or windings" (Column 2, lines 20-29; Rohner).
Regarding claim 14, Tunis et al. discloses the limitations of claim 9, and the cable reel.
Tunis et al. does not disclose wherein the drum has radial grooves to receive the cable.
Rohner teaches a cable reel wherein the drum has radial grooves to receive the cable (9, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and one would have been motivated to modify the cable reel of Tunis et al. to have the grooves of Rohner because the grooves function ‘to ensure that there is a sufficient space between windings or turns to permit a subsequent folding of the wound material" (Column 3, lines 10-14; Rohner).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama, JP-S6169668A and Tunis et al., US1559133 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Rohner, US4213582.
Regarding claim 6, modified Nakayama teaches the limitations of claim 6, and the method of winding the cable on a reel.
Nakayama does not disclose the method comprising the steps of: moving the cable reel being in the transportation state onto a transportation means, removing the cable reel from the transportation means after a transport with the transportation means, and unskewing the cable reel to reach the winding state before unwinding the cable from the cable reel again.
Rohner teaches a method of winding a cable on a reel, comprising the steps of: moving the cable reel being in the transportation state onto a transportation means, removing the cable reel from the transportation means after a transport with the transportation means, and unskewing the cable reel to reach the winding state before unwinding the cable from the cable reel again (Column 1, line 62 - Column 2, line 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and one would have been motivated to combine the methods of modified Nakayama and Rohner to permit "transportation of material in wound form, which has a bending radius in excess of that which is usually considered as the upper limit for transportation in that such material can be wound in accordance with the bending radius, with the height or width of the wound material then being reduced by the folding mechanism in accordance with the invention, and without exerting excess deforming force on the individual turns or windings" (Column 2, lines 20-29; Rohner).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights