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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Canada on 12/18/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CA3223433 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 20B. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200” has been used to designate both an operator in Fig. 2 and the pinning body in Fig. 14; and character “204B” has been used to refer to the screw shaft on page 27, line 1 and a top base plate on page 27, line 5. 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. 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 17 it appears there is a typographical error and “to axle” should read “to the axle”.
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.
Claims 1-19 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 independent claim 1, the limitation “which spool” in line 2 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear if applicant intends to refer to the “a spool” of line 2 or a new spool. Examiner suggests applicant replace the terminology “which spool” with “said spool” for consistency and clarity.
Claims 2-19 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
Regarding claims 9, 17, and 19, the limitation “in combination with the axle” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what structure applicant intends to claim by the limitation “in combination with the axle”, as “the axle” is part of the claimed combination of structural limitations in independent claim 1 from which claims 9, 17, and 19 depend. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is treating claims 9, 17, and 19 as if the limitation “in combination with the axle” has been removed.
Claims 10-11 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 9.
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) 1, 8-17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauber, US4325522 in view of Amals, Foreign Patent Document, NL7808734.
Regarding independent claim 1, Sauber discloses a cable reel stand (10, Fig. 1) for rotational support of a cable reel comprising a spool (17, Fig. 1) and a length of cable wound thereon (18, Fig. 1), which spool is carriable by an axle spanning axially through said spool on a central axis thereof from a first side of said spool to an opposing second side thereof (16, Fig. 1), said cable reel stand comprising: first and second stanchions spaced apart from one another (13, 15, Fig. 1) for respective support thereatop of first and second end-regions of said axle situated axially outward of the spool at said first and second sides thereof to enable rotatable support of said spool between said first and second stanchions (Column 2, line 65 - Column 3, line 4); first and second cradles (28, Fig. 1, 2) mounted respectively atop the first and second stanchions for respective receipt of said first and second end-regions of said axle to support said axle in a position rotatably seated in said first and second cradles, thereby achieving said rotatable support of the spool between said first and second stanchions (Column 3, lines 15-19); and at an outer side of the first stanchion facing away from the second stanchion, and in a mounted position of proximate relation to the first cradle, a brake (40, Fig. 1, 2) having a rotatably supported brake rotor (44, Fig. 1, 2) and a brake caliper cooperatively associated therewith (51, Fig. 1, 2), of which said brake rotor is couplable to the axle (40 coupled to axle 16, Fig. 2), when received in said first and second cradles (brake 40 coupled to axle 16 when received in 28, Fig. 1, 2), and when coupled to axle, and operable, under action of the brake caliper on said brake rotor, to impart a braking effect on rotation of the axle for tensioned unspooling of the cable from the reel during rotation thereof (Column 3, lines 29-45).
Sauber does not disclose the brake rotor is selectively couplable to the axle.
However, Amals teaches a stand for unwinding of a roll of material having an axle and a brake, wherein the brake rotor is selectively couplable to the axle (via air cylinder 9 which moves 7 in and out of engagement with 10, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sauber and Amals “ to make the whole thing cheaper, because only one brake is required” (Page 3, paragraph 1, lines 2-3; Amals). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the brake becomes easily accessible for maintenance and adjustment” (Page 3, paragraph 1, lines 3-4; Amals) and for easy mounting and dismounting of reels.
Regarding claim 8, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and wherein said brake rotor (44, Fig. 1) comprises an internal channel passing axially therethrough (channel through which 16 passes through 44, Fig. 2).
Sauber does not disclose a coupling pin, said coupling pin is insertable into removable engagement with the axle at the first end region thereof, and said coupling pin is of non-circular outer-profile, at least at one or more engagement regions thereof that respectively engage one or both of the brake rotor and the axle at one or more non-circular inner profiles thereof in a fully inserted state of said coupling pin, whereby the non-circular outer profile of the coupling pin cooperates with the one or more non-circular inner profiles of said one or both of the brake rotor and the axle to prevent relative rotation between the coupling pin and said one or both of the brake rotor and the axle.
However, Amals teaches a stand for unwinding of a roll of material having an axle and a brake, further comprising a coupling pin (7, Fig. 6), and wherein said brake rotor comprises an internal channel passing axially therethrough (internal channel of 22, Fig. 6), through which said coupling pin is insertable into removable engagement with the axle at the first end region thereof (7 inserted through channel of 22, to engage axle 10 at a first end region, 15, Fig. 6), and said coupling pin is of non-circular outer-profile (Page 3, Paragraph 8, lines 9-10), at least at one or more engagement regions thereof that respectively engage one or both of the brake rotor and the axle at one or more non-circular inner profiles thereof in a fully inserted state of said coupling pin (engagement region 15 of axle, and engagement region 19 of rotor 22, Fig. 6 match square profiles of 7 Page 3, Paragraph 8, lines 9-10), whereby the non-circular outer profile of the coupling pin cooperates with the one or more non-circular inner profiles of said one or both of the brake rotor and the axle to prevent relative rotation between the coupling pin and said one or both of the brake rotor and the axle (Page 3, Paragraph 8, lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Amals to have a coupling pin with a non-circular profile to couple the brake rotor and axle, "in order to be able to transfer the drive of the roller 12 to the shaft 7" (Page 3, paragraph 8, lines 8-9; Amals). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the brake becomes easily accessible for maintenance and adjustment” (Page 3, paragraph 1, lines 3-4; Amals) and for easy mounting and dismounting of reels.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 8, and the axle (16, Fig. 2).
Sauber does not disclose wherein said one or both of the brake rotor and the axle comprises at least the axle.
However, Amals teaches a stand for unwinding of a roll of material having an axle and a brake wherein said one or both of the brake rotor and the axle comprises at least the axle (Page 3, paragraph 8, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Amals "in order to be able to transfer the drive of the roller 12 to the shaft 7" (Page 3, paragraph 8, lines 8-9; Amals). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the brake becomes easily accessible for maintenance and adjustment” (Page 3, paragraph 1, lines 3-4; Amals) and for easy mounting and dismounting of reels.
Regarding claim 10, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 9, and wherein the axle comprises an axle shaft (16, Fig. 1) and an end-fitting (first end of 16, Fig. 2).
Sauber does not disclose the axle comprises an end-fitting installed on a first end of the axle shaft, and the non-circular inner profile of the axle at the first end region thereof is embodied by said end-fitting.
However, Amals teaches a stand for unwinding of a roll of material having an axle and a brake, wherein the axle comprises an end-fitting installed on a first end of the axle shaft (15, Fig. 6), and the non-circular inner profile of the axle at the first end region thereof is embodied by said end-fitting (Page 3, paragraph 8, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Amals "in order to be able to transfer the drive of the roller 12 to the shaft 7" (Page 3, paragraph 8, lines 8-9; Amals). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the brake becomes easily accessible for maintenance and adjustment” (Page 3, paragraph 1, lines 3-4; Amals) and for easy mounting and dismounting of reels.
Regarding claim 11, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 10, and wherein said end-fitting (first end of 16, Fig. 2) comprises an externally flanged collar comprising two external flanges (34, 36, Fig. 2) and an unflanged area therebetween for supportive engagement of the unflanged area by the first cradle (Column 3, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 8, and wherein the second end region of the axle is characterized by absence of a flanged fitting thereon (end of 16 opposite to 34, 36 and near 26 does not have flanged fitting, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 8, and a brake rotor and an axle.
Sauber does not disclose wherein said one or both of the brake rotor and the axle comprises at least the brake rotor.
However, Amals teaches a stand for unwinding of a roll of material having an axle and a brake, wherein said one or both of the brake rotor and the axle comprises at least the brake rotor (engagement region 19 of rotor 22, Fig. 6 match square profiles of 7 Page 3, Paragraph 8, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Amals "in order to be able to transfer the drive of the roller 12 to the shaft 7" (Page 3, paragraph 8, lines 8-9; Amals). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the brake becomes easily accessible for maintenance and adjustment” (Page 3, paragraph 1, lines 3-4; Amals) and for easy mounting and dismounting of reels.
Regarding claim 14, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and a brake rotor.
Sauber does not disclose the brake rotor comprises a tubular brake shaft through which the internal channel axially extends, and a pair of support bearings are disposed on opposite sides of said rotor to rotatably support said tubular brake shaft.
However, Amals teaches a stand for unwinding of a roll of material having an axle and a brake, wherein the brake rotor comprises a tubular brake shaft through which the internal channel axially extends (central to 22, Fig. 6), and a pair of support bearings are disposed on opposite sides of said rotor to rotatably support said tubular brake shaft (bearings at 5, 66, and near 9, 3, Fig. 6 support brake shaft 7, 18, 19, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Amals "in order to be able to transfer the drive of the roller 12 to the shaft 7" (Page 3, paragraph 8, lines 8-9; Amals). One would have been motivated to make this modification to minimize frictional loss at the shaft supports on either side of the brake rotor.
Regarding claim 15, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and a brake.
Sauber does not disclose the brake is adjustable in position thereon to enable optimal alignment of the brake with the cradles, and with the axle when received by said cradles.
However, Amals teaches a stand for unwinding of a roll of material having an axle and a brake, wherein the brake is adjustable in position thereon to enable optimal alignment of the brake with the cradles, and with the axle when received by said cradles (via 9, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Amals, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that the "brake becomes easily accessible for maintenance and adjustment" (Page 3, paragraph 1, line 4; Amals).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 15, and a brake.
Sauber does not disclose wherein said brake is adjustable in both vertical and horizontal directions to enable optimal alignment of the brake with the cradles, and with the axle when received by said cradles.
However, Amals teaches a stand for unwinding of a roll of material having an axle and a brake, wherein said brake is horizontally adjustable to enable optimal alignment of the brake with the cradles, and with the axle when received by said cradles (via 9, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sauber and Amals and additionally, to make the brake vertically adjustable, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification so that the "brake becomes easily accessible for maintenance and adjustment" (Page 3, paragraph 1, line 4; Amals) ensuring the brake is aligned and rotational force can be transferred between the axle and the brake during operation.
Regarding claim 17, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and in combination with the axle (16, Fig. 2), wherein said first end region of the axle comprises two external flanges (34, 36, Fig. 2) and an unflanged area therebetween for supportive engagement thereof by the first cradle (Column 3, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and in combination with the axle, wherein the second end region of the axle is characterized by absence of a flanged fitting thereon (end of 16 opposite to 34, 36 and near 26 does not have flanged fitting, Fig. 2).
Regarding independent claim 21, Sauber discloses a cable reel support apparatus (10, Fig. 1) for support of a cable reel comprising a spool (17, Fig. 1) and a length of cable wound thereon (18, Fig. 1), said support apparatus comprising: an axle on which said cable reel is carriable by installation of said axle through a central axial bore of said spool (16, Fig. 1); a cable reel support stand (10, 13, 15, Fig. 1) comprising: first and second stanchions spaced apart from one another (13, 15, Fig. 1) for respective support thereon of said axle thereof to enable rotatable support of said spool between said first and second stanchions (Column 2, line 65 - Column 3, line 4); in mounted accompaniment to the first stanchion, a brake (40, Fig. 1, 2) having a rotatably supported brake rotor (44, Fig. 1, 2) and a brake caliper cooperatively associated therewith (51, Fig. 1, 2), of which said brake rotor is couplable to the axle (40 couplable to 16, Fig. 2), when received and supported on first and second stanchions (when 16 is on stanchions 13, 15, Fig. 1) and operable to a braking effect on rotation of the axle, when coupled to the brake rotor, to impart a braking effect on rotation of the axle for tensioned unspooling of the cable from the reel during rotation thereof (Column 3, lines 29-45);
Sauber does not disclose of which said brake rotor is selectively couplable to the axle, when received and supported on first and second stanchions, and a coupling pin for coupling the brake rotor to the axle; wherein: the brake comprises an internal channel passing axially through the brake rotor, through which the coupling pin is insertable; the axle, at least at a first end thereof, has a hollow interior, at least part of which is characterized by a non-circular shape profile; the coupling pin, at least at an engagement region thereof that resides within the hollow interior of the axle in a fully inserted state of the coupling pin, has a non-circular outer profile that cooperates with the non-circular profile of the hollow interior of the axle to prevent relative rotation between the coupling pin and the axle.
However, Amals teaches a support apparatus for unwinding of a roll of material having an axle and a brake, of which said brake rotor is selectively couplable to the axle (via air cylinder 9 which moves 7 in and out of engagement with 10, Fig. 1), and a coupling pin for coupling the brake rotor to the axle (7, Fig. 6); wherein: the brake comprises an internal channel passing axially through the brake rotor (channel internal to 22, Fig. 6), through which the coupling pin is insertable (7 passes through 22, Fig. 6); the axle, at least at a first end thereof, has a hollow interior (10, 15, Fig. 6), at least part of which is characterized by a non-circular shape profile (Page 3, paragraph 8, lines 6-10); the coupling pin, at least at an engagement region thereof that resides within the hollow interior of the axle in a fully inserted state of the coupling pin, has a non-circular outer profile that cooperates with the non-circular profile of the hollow interior of the axle to prevent relative rotation between the coupling pin and the axle (Page 3, paragraph 8, lines 6-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sauber and Amals to selectively couple the brake and the axle with a coupling pin, "in order to be able to transfer the drive of the roller 12 to the shaft 7" (Page 3, paragraph 8, lines 8-9; Amals). One would have been motivated to make this modification because “the brake becomes easily accessible for maintenance and adjustment” (Page 3, paragraph 1, lines 3-4; Amals) and for easy mounting and dismounting of reels.
Claim(s) 2-7, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauber, US4325522 and Amals, Foreign Patent Document, NL7808734 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jordan et al., US8025261.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and cradles.
Sauber does not disclose wherein at least one of the cradles is a roller cradle comprising an adjacent pair of cradle rollers rotatable about parallel axes for rolling support of the axle of the cable reel atop said adjacent pair of cradle rollers at facing- together top quadrants thereof.
Jordan et al. teaches a stand for unwinding of a reel of material having an axle, wherein at least one of the cradles is a roller cradle comprising an adjacent pair of cradle rollers rotatable about parallel axes for rolling support of the axle of the cable reel atop said adjacent pair of cradle rollers at facing- together top quadrants thereof (62, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Jordan et al. to have cradles with rollers, "for easy rotation of the axle" (Column 1, line 67; Jordan et al.). One would have been motivated to add rollers to the cradle in order to minimize frictional loss between the axle and the cradle during rotation.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 2, and a cradle.
Sauber does not disclose said roller cradle comprises a pair of angled axle guides sloping downwardly toward one another.
However, Jordan et al. teaches a stand for unwinding of a reel of material having a roller cradle, wherein said roller cradle comprises a pair of angled axle guides sloping downwardly toward one another (50, from 78 to 62 and from 58 to 62 facing the axle 118, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Jordan et al. to have the angled guides in order to ensure the reel axle is properly seated in the cradle. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to allow for easier installation of the reel axle in the cradles.
Regarding claim 4, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 2, and the cradles.
Sauber does not disclose both of the cradles are roller cradles.
However, Jordan et al. teaches a stand for unwinding of a reel of material having a roller cradle, wherein both of said cradles are roller cradles (Column 5, lines 12-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Sauber, Amals, and Jordan et al. to have cradles with rollers, "for easy rotation of the axle" (Column 1, line 67; Jordan et al.). One would have been motivated to add rollers to the cradles in order to minimize frictional loss between the axle and the cradles during rotation.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and cradles.
Sauber does not disclose wherein each cradle is equipped with an openable/closeable hold-down movable between an open position permitting loading of the axle onto the cradle, and a closed position capturing the axle once loaded onto the cradle, and lockable in said closed position.
However, Jordan et al. teaches a stand for unwinding of a reel of material having cradles for receiving the axle, wherein each cradle is equipped with an openable/closeable hold-down movable between an open position permitting loading of the axle onto the cradle (Column 5, lines 26-29; 54, Fig. 2), and a closed position capturing the axle once loaded onto the cradle, and lockable in said closed position (Column 5, lines 26-29; lockable via 66, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Jordan et al. to have the openable/closeable hold-down to ensure the axle is secured. One would have been motivated to make this modification to limit vertical and axial movement of the axle during operation.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 5, and a reel stand.
Sauber does not disclose wherein said openable/closeable hold-downs comprise hold-down rollers thereon at positions overlying the axle when loaded on the cradle and captured by the hold-downs.
However, Jordan et al. teaches a stand for unwinding of a reel of material having cradles for receiving the axle with openable/closeable hold-downs, wherein said openable/closeable hold-downs (54, Fig. 2) comprise hold-down rollers thereon at positions overlying the axle when loaded on the cradle and captured by the hold-downs (62, Fig. 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Jordan et al. to have hold-downs with rollers, "for easy rotation of the axle" (Column 1, line 67; Jordan et al.). One would have been motivated to add rollers to the cradle hold-down in order to minimize frictional loss between the axle and the cradle during rotation.
Regarding claim 7, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 5, and the cradles.
Sauber does not disclose wherein the openable/closeable hold-down of each cradle is adjustably mounted to enable fine tuning of the closed position for best conforming fit thereof with the axle in said closed position.
However, Jordan et al. teaches a stand for unwinding of a reel of material having cradles for receiving the axle with openable/closeable hold-downs, wherein the openable/closeable hold-down of each cradle is adjustably mounted to enable fine tuning of the closed position for best conforming fit thereof with the axle in said closed position (Column 3, lines 17-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Jordan et al. to make the cradle hold-down adjustable, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would have been motivated to make this modification "to accommodate additional sizes of axles" (Column 3, lines 23-24; Jordan et al.).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sauber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and a cradle.
Sauber does not disclose at least one of the cradles comprises tapered rollers for rolling contact with the axle at a circumferentially V-grooved area thereof.
Jordan et al. teaches a stand for unwinding of a reel of material having cradles, wherein at least one of the cradles comprises rollers for rolling contact with the axle (62, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Jordan et al. to have cradles with rollers, "for easy rotation of the axle" (Column 1, line 67; Jordan et al.). One would have been motivated to add rollers to the cradle in order to minimize frictional loss between the axle and the cradle during rotation.
Amals teaches a stand for unwinding of a roll of material having an axle, and tapered rollers for rolling contact with the axle at a circumferentially V-grooved area thereof (Page 4, Paragraph 3, lines 7-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of modified Sauber and Amals to have tapered rollers cooperating with a V-grooved area of the axle, in order to secure the axle against axial movement. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to ensure the axle is properly aligned with the cradle and secured against any axial displacement during operation.
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