DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 3-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lolle et al. (US 20190127186 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lolle et al. discloses a movable cable spooling apparatus (Fig. 1; Pg. 1, ¶20, self-contained hoist device 1) comprising: a drum (Fig. 1; Pg. 1, ¶20, winch 13); a cable, wherein the drum is arranged for winding and unwinding the cable (Fig. 1; Pg. 1, ¶20, hoisting wire 14); a frame, wherein the frame supports the drum (Fig. 1; Pg. 1, ¶20, housing 10); a cable guide forming an exit and entry for the cable to be wound on or unwound from the drum (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, ¶21, guides 17); wherein the frame comprises a rigid base plate that supports the drum and the cable guide (Fig. 4a depicting housing 10 having a base plate indicated by the character 10 in the figure); and wherein the cable runs adjacent to the rigid base plate between the drum and the cable guide (Fig. 3 depicting wire 14 running adjacent to the bottom of the housing 10).
Regarding claim 3, Lolle et al. discloses wherein the cable runs tangentially to and from the drum on a side of the drum that faces the base plate (best depicted in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Lolle et al. discloses wherein the apparatus comprises an anchoring organ which is mounted on a side of the base plate facing away from the cable guide and straightly opposite to the cable guide (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, ¶21, lifting beam 11 disposed on a side of the base plate of the housing 10).
Regarding claim 5, Lolle et al. discloses wherein the anchoring organ is a knob or a cavity which is designed to cooperate with an external fixture for suspending the movable cable spooling apparatus from the external fixture (Fig. 1; Pg. 2, ¶27, indexing plunger 27 acting as a knob inserted through a cavity of the lifting beam 11).
Regarding claim 7, Lolle et al. discloses wherein the frame supports a closing cover (Fig. 1 depicting the housing 10 having a cover protecting the internal components).
Regarding claim 8, Lolle et al. discloses wherein the cable guide comprises a rotatable table that supports a first pulley and a second pulley that are placed on the rotatable table at a distance that enables the cable to be guided by and between the first pulley and the second pulley, and wherein the cable runs perpendicular to and through the rotatable table (Fig. 1, 4a-b; Pg. 2, ¶¶21, 27, guides 17 being guide wheels which corresponds to first and second pully, being disposed on a pivot arm 16 corresponding to a rotatable table).
Regarding claim 9, Lolle et al. discloses wherein the first pulley and the second pulley both have guards at opposite sides of the first pulley and the second pulley (Fig. 1 depicting guards running opposite ends of guides 17).
Regarding claim 10, Lolle et al. discloses wherein the drum is connected to a motor for driving the drum (Fig. 1; Pg. 1, ¶20, hoist motor 12).
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lolle et al. (US 20190127186 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-5 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Davidson et al. (US 2387245 A).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Lolle et al. discloses wherein the frame comprises a handlebar (Fig. 1 depicting a handle disposed above the winch 13; Pg. 2, ¶26, further discloses additional handles) except for the frame comprising wheels. However, Davidson et al. teaches wherein the frame comprises wheels for moving the apparatus (Fig. 2; Pg. 1, Col. 2, Ln. 16-18, wheels 12). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention in order to incorporate wheels to the movable cable spooling apparatus to provide a means for ease of maneuvering and moving the device when heavy cables are spooled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references refer to winches or spooling devices which either comprise the functioning features of a drum, motor, housing, and cable guide or the capability of being portable and mountable to a separate frame or a body.
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 through Thursday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST and a flexed schedule on Fridays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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 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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights