DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 20, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on August 20, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and claims have overcome each and every objection and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 251, 112(a), and 112(b) previously set forth in the non-final Office action mailed May 20, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 20, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, in response to Applicant’s argument that Lewis and Kohler do not disclose that “the winding forms an ellipse,” the examiner maintains that Kohler discloses this feature as it is understood in view of Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant’s disclosure describes the ellipse as being defined by a projection of the circumference of the winding due to the winding angle at which the cable is wound onto a circular reel by a feed head that “oscillate[s] along parallel to the central axis” as the cable is laid up on the reel. Col. 9:12-31. See elliptical projection 804 in Fig. 8, described at col. 4:54-60, and reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
421
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kohler discloses a wire that is similarly wound onto a circular reel (d, Fig. 1) with a large angle of pitch by a reciprocating guide (h) that oscillates along a line parallel to the central axis of the wire package. See Fig. 1. Kohler discloses that the wire “can be unwound from inside without any entanglement or kinking by winding the wire helically with a large angle of pitch while it is caused to execute a transverse to and fro motion.” Col. 1:17-25. The resulting winding, which is formed in the same way disclosed by Applicant, results in turns of the winding forming an elliptical projection in the same sense that Applicant’s winding forms an ellipse. See Fig. 3 of Kohler, annotated below to illustrate the elliptical projection (with the circular footprint of the wire coil shown in dotted lines for the purpose of comparison). The major diameter (D2) of the elliptical projection of Kohler’s wire coil is greater than the diameter (D1) of the circular footprint of the wire coil.
PNG
media_image2.png
617
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, while it is true that Kohler does not use the word “ellipse” to describe this configuration, it is evident from the disclosure of Kohler, considered as a whole, that Kohler discloses a winding that forms an ellipse in the same sense that Applicant’s winding forms an ellipse.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lewis and Kohler do not teach that “a diameter of the ellipse formed by the winding is greater than the circular diameter formed by the chamber,” the examiner maintains that this feature would have been obvious in view of the combined teaching of Lewis and Kohler. Due to the geometry of the winding disclosed by Kohler, it is evident that the major diameter (D2) of the ellipse is necessarily greater than the outer circular diameter (D1) of the coil, as shown in annotated Fig. 3 of Kohler above. Lewis teaches that the package/dispenser “will have a diameter … suitable for containing a roll of wire of a selected size” (col. 1:74-75). This is understood to teach a diameter of the chamber of the dispenser generally corresponding to the outer circular diameter of the wire coil.
The examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on the combined teachings of the two references, which may be summarized as follows:
Lewis teaches a circular diameter of the chamber generally corresponding to the circular diameter of the winding.
Kohler teaches a winding angle resulting in an elliptical projection having a major diameter greater than the circular diameter of the winding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Kohler’s teaching regarding the geometry of the winding to the wire package of Lewis in order to prevent tangling of the wire, since this is a concern of both Lewis and Kohler. See Lewis, col. 1:5-15, and Kohler, pg. 1:8-25.
Given Lewis’ teaching with respect to the diameter of the chamber relative to the size of the wire coil and Kohler’s teaching with respect to the major diameter of the elliptical projection relative to the circular diameter of the wire coil, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Kohler’s teaching to the package of Lewis resulting in the diameter of the ellipse being greater than the circular diameter formed by the chamber (which generally corresponds to the circular diameter of the winding), as a result which naturally flows from following the teachings of Lewis and Kohler.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kohler does not teach the elliptical shape produces the result of minimizing movement of the winding within the chamber, the examiner maintains that Kohler teaches that the elliptical winding geometry is advantageous for preventing wire coils from becoming entangled within a receptacle (pg. 1:11-25), which is understood to include minimizing movement of the winding within the receptacle.
With respect to claim 8, in response to Applicant’s argument that Kohler “teaches nothing about the length of each revolution of the cable in the winding,” the examiner maintains that Kohler’s teaching regarding the large pitch angle of the winding (discussed above) has clear and necessary implications for the length of each winding, as illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 of Kohler. It is clear from Kohler’s disclosure that the length of each winding is greater than the outer circular circumference of the wire coil, as a necessary result of the large pitch angle of each winding.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kohler does not describe the length of each revolution relative to an outer surface of the chamber, the examiner maintains that this feature would have been obvious in view of the combined teaching of Cornwell and Kohler. For clarity, the examiner notes that the term “outer surface” as used in claim 8 is understood in view of Applicant’s disclosure as referring to a surface of the outer wall of the chamber against which the cable is wound (not necessarily an exterior surface of the package), since Applicant discloses that “Winding 702 may be wound tightly against outer surface 606.” Col. 4:42-53. Compare Cornwell’s Fig. 4 and Applicant’s Fig. 7, reproduced below. Cornwell clearly shows that the outer circular circumference of the wire coil is substantially the same as the circumference of the outer surface of the chamber in which the wire is laid. See Fig. 4 of Cornwell, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
279
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Again, the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on the combined teachings of the two references, which in this case may be summarized as follows:
Cornwell teaches a circumference of the outer surface of the chamber against which the winding is wound being substantially the same as the outer circular circumference of the wire coil.
Kohler teaches a winding angle resulting in the length of each revolution of the cable in the winding being greater than the outer circular circumference of the wire coil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Kohler’s teaching regarding the geometry of the winding to the wire package of Cornwell in order to prevent tangling of the wire, since this is a concern of both Cornwell and Kohler. See Cornwell, col. 1:10-29, and Kohler, pg. 1:8-25.
Given Cornwell’s teaching with respect to the circumference of the outer surface of the chamber relative to the circular circumference of the wire coil and Kohler’s teaching with respect to the length of each revolution relative to the circular circumference of the wire coil, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Kohler’s teaching to the package of Cornwell resulting in the length of each revolution being greater than the circumference of the outer surface of the chamber (which generally corresponds to the circular circumference of the wire coil), as a result which naturally flows from following the teachings of Cornwell and Kohler.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kohler does not teach the elliptical shape produces the result of minimizing movement of the winding within the chamber, the examiner notes again that Kohler teaches that the elliptical winding geometry is advantageous for preventing wire coils from becoming entangled within a receptacle (pg. 1:11-25), which is understood to include minimizing movement of the winding within the receptacle.
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 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein laying the cable at the winding angle in an oscillating manner further comprises” in lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite. Because the laying of the cable “in an oscillating manner” has been deleted from independent claim 1, it is unclear how the method steps of laying of the cable in an oscillating manner recited in the “wherein” clause of claim 4 further limits the claimed package.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewis (U.S. Patent No. 3,602,455, hereinafter Lewis) in view of Kohler (GB 295,278 A, hereinafter Kohler).
Regarding claim 1, Lewis discloses a package (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a chamber defining an internal volume (see Figs. 1-2; “sufficient to permit the assembled dispenser to contain a wire roll,” col. 2:37-40), the chamber comprising an outer surface (defined by walls 12 and 22), a top surface (roof 21) and a bottom surface (floor 11), and a central axis (through central holes in roof 21 and floor 11) parallel to the outer surface (12, 22; see Fig. 3), wherein the chamber comprises a circular diameter (see Figs. 1-2; col. 1:38-39); and
a cable1 comprising a winding (“a wire roll,” col. 2:37-40) and at least one free end (e.g., wire end 32, Fig. 3), the winding contained within the chamber and constrained by the outer surface (12, 22), the top surface (21), and the bottom surface (11; col. 2:37-40);
wherein the winding is oriented within the chamber (col. 2:37-40); and
wherein the package comprises protrusions (at edges 20 and 31, Figs. 1-2; col. 2:13-20, 48-55) and/or recesses (holes defined by edges 20 and 31, Figs. 1-2) that allow the package to be stacked with another package (see Fig. 3; col. 2:66-73).
Lewis is silent with respect to the manner of orienting the winding within the chamber and does disclose laying the cable at a winding angle relative to a second axis oriented perpendicular to the central axis such that the winding forms an ellipse, wherein a diameter of the ellipse formed by the winding of the cable is greater than the circular diameter formed by the chamber.
However, in the art of wire winding, Kohler teaches a cable comprising a winding (wire coil e, Fig. 1) that is laid at a winding angle (“helically with a large angle of pitch,” pg. 1:20-25; see Figs. 2-3; laid in “a transverse to and fro motion,” pg. 1:21-25; see also pg. 1:43-52) relative to a second axis oriented perpendicular to a central axis of the winding (see Figs. 2-3) such that the winding forms an ellipse (see elongated turns in Figs. 2-3, pg. 1:53-57; compare to Applicant’s Fig. 4), wherein a diameter of the ellipse formed by the winding of the cable (e.g., a distance from point 1 to point 2 in a first winding, Fig. 2; pg. 1:60-70) is greater than the circular outer diameter of the winding. Kohler teaches that this manner of winding is advantageous for preventing wire coils from becoming entangled within a receptacle (pg. 1:11-25), which is understood to include minimizing movement of the winding within the receptacle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the invention of Lewis by orienting the winding within the chamber by laying the cable at a winding angle relative to the central axis, as taught by Kohler, such that the winding forms an ellipse, wherein a diameter of the ellipse formed by the winding of the cable is greater than the circular diameter of the winding, as taught by Kohler, and thus also greater than the circular diameter formed by the chamber of Lewis which is sized to hold the winding, in order to prevent tangling of the cable within the chamber.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Lewis teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Kohler further teaches that the winding angle is “large” (pg. 1:20-22), illustrated in Fig. 2 to be on the order of about 30 degrees relative to the second axis that is perpendicular to the central axis, and illustrated in Fig. 3 to be on the order of about 15 degrees relative to the second axis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying Lewis in view of Kohler as discussed above, to select a winding angle within the broad range of between 2 degrees and 85 degrees, as suggested by Kohler, in order to prevent tangling of the cable within the chamber as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Lewis teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Lewis further teaches the at least one free end (32, Fig. 3) pays off from a portion of the winding proximate an inner surface of the winding (col. 2:70-73). See also Kohler, pg. 1:11-17, “the wire can be unwound from the inner side of the coil.”
Regarding claim 4, the modified Lewis teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Kohler further teaches laying of the cable in an oscillating manner by a head (guide h, Fig. 1) moving parallel to the central axis (guide h “is mounted on and reciprocates with a transverse guiding bar i,” pg. 1:43-52), such that the cable is laid at a first winding angle when the head (h) moves in a first direction parallel to the central axis, and the cable is laid at a second winding angle when the head (h) moves in a second direction, opposite the first direction and parallel to the central axis. See Figs. 2-3, showing cross windings at first and second angles as laid up by reciprocating head (h).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Kohler, in further view of Wikipedia, “Cable” (hereinafter Wikipedia).2
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the modified Lewis teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Lewis further teaches that the cable is electrical cable, but Lewis is silent with respect to the structure of the cable and does not explicitly teach that the cable is stranded (claim 5) or solid (claim 6). However, Wikipedia teaches that stranded electrical cable (claim 5) and solid electrical cable (claim 6) were both well-known prior to Applicant’s invention. See Wikipedia, pg. 3: “Electrical cables may be made more flexible by stranding the wires. In this process, smaller individual wires are twisted or braided together to produce larger wires that are more flexible than solid wires of similar size.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to further modify Lewis by selecting either a stranded cable for flexibility (claim 5) or a solid cable for durability (claim 6), this involving only the simple selection between one of two well-known electrical cable structures, to yield predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Kohler, in further view of Kummer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,557,301, hereinafter Kummer).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Lewis teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Lewis does not teach a jacket of the cable including an integrated lubrication. However, Kummer teaches an electrical cable (12, Fig. 1) comprising a jacket including an integrated lubrication (formed by mixing plastic material 17 with lubricating material 19 applied to exterior surface of conductor wire 14; col. 3:66-4:32) to simplify installation (col. 4:28-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to further modify Lewis by selecting a cable with a jacket that includes an integrated lubrication, as taught by Kummer, in order to simplify installation of the cable as it is paid out of the package.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cornwell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,727,858, hereinafter Cornwell) in view of Kohler.
Regarding claim 8, Cornwell discloses a package (reel 10, Figs. 1-2 and 4) comprising:
a chamber defining an internal volume (see Figs. 2 and 4), the chamber comprising an outer surface (defined by outer sides of mating halves 11, 12; col. 1:41-47), a top surface (defined by top of half 12) and a bottom surface (defined by bottom of half 11); and
a cable comprising a winding (wire coil, Fig. 4) and at least one free end (col. 2:7-9), the winding contained within the chamber and constrained by the outer surface, the top surface and the bottom surface (see Fig. 4).
Cornwell does not disclose that the length of each revolution of the cable in the winding is greater than the circumference of the outer surface so as to minimize the movement of the winding within the chamber. However, in the art of wire winding, Kohler teaches a cable comprising a winding (wire coil e, Fig. 1), wherein a length of each revolution of the cable in the winding is greater than an outer circumference of the winding (due to the elongated turns produced by the pitch angle of the helical winding, Figs. 2-3; pg. 1:18-25, 1:53-2:70). Kohler teaches that this manner of winding is advantageous for preventing wire coils from becoming entangled within a receptacle (pg. 1:11-25), which is understood to include minimizing movement of the winding within the receptacle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the invention of Cornwell by configuring the cable such that the length of each revolution of the cable in the winding is greater than an outer circumference of the winding, as taught by Kohler, and thus also greater than the circumference of the outer surface of the chamber which is sized to hold the winding, so as to minimize movement of the winding within the chamber and thus prevent tangling of the cable within the chamber.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Cornwell teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 8. Cornwell further discloses a circular continuous gap (annular opening 23, Figs. 2 and 4; col. 1:54-2:1) formed by an opening (23) between an edge of an inner surface (drum 14) of the chamber and an edge (rim 22) of the top surface (of half 12).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cornwell in view of Kohler, in further view of Bass et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,520,347, hereinafter Bass).
Regarding claims 10-12, the modified Cornwell teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Cornwell does not disclose that the gap is arranged to apply back tension to the winding of the cable passing through the gap (claim 10) by way of tines on the inner surface (claim 11) or on the outer surface (claim 12). However, in the art of cable packages, Bass teaches tines (fingers 64 of diaphragm 61, Figs. 2 and 6) on an edge of an opening through which a cable winding is paid out to apply back tension to the winding to minimize movement of the winding within a container. See col. 5:4-24: “fingers 64, 64 are resilient and yield readily to the wire under pulling tension. On the other hand, the diaphragm 61, opening 62, and fingers 64 tend to center the wire and to hold it in place when it is not under tension. In addition, when the wire is under tension and is cut, it tends to spring back into the carton, but such springing back is prevented by diaphragm 61.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to further modify the invention of Cornwell by configuring the gap to apply back tension to the winding of the cable passing through the gap to minimize movement of the winding within the chamber, as taught by Bass (claim 10), specifically by including tines as taught by Bass to either of the two surfaces that forms the gap, i.e., the edge of the inner surface (claim 11) or the edge of the top surface (claim 12), in order to hold the cable in place without springing back when it is not under pulling tension.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cornwell in view of Kohler, in further view of Lewis.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the modified Cornwell teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Cornwell does not teach protrusions and/or recesses that allow the package to be stacked with another package. However, Lewis discloses a package (Figs. 1-3) for a cable, wherein the package comprises protrusions (at edges 20 and 31, Figs. 1-2; col. 2:13-20, 48-55) and/or recesses (holes defined by edges 20 and 31, Figs. 1-2) that allow the package to be stacked with another package (see Fig. 3; col. 2:66-73) (claim 13), wherein the protrusions and/or recesses may be used to maintain an alignment between the stacked packages (Fig. 3; col. 2:66-73) (claim 14). Lewis teaches that this facilitates dispensing two or more rolls of cable at the same time without tangling (col. 1:15-18, 54-55; 2:66-73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to further modify the package of Cornwell to include protrusions and/or recesses as taught by Lewis that allow the package to be stacked with another package (claim 13) and maintain alignment between the stacked packages (claim 14), so that multiple wires can be dispensed at the same time without tangling.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/JOSHUA KADING/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 The term “cable” is interpreted in view of Applicant’s disclosure as “synonymous with the word wire.” ‘719 patent, col. 3:14-15.
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_cable, archived by the Internet Archive on September 20, 2010.
