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 Status
This Office action is in response to the Response to Restriction Requirement dated 1/21/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-15 have been withdrawn as a result of a restriction requirement.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 16-20, in the reply filed on 1/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/21/2026.
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 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrows (US 6679672 B1) in view of Schott (DE 102011081172 A1). Note that citations to the written description of Schott refer to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 16, Barrows discloses a method comprising: positioning a frame (14 – Fig. 2) comprising an interior space (the interior space of 14 – Fig. 2) against a wall (42 – Fig. 2) comprising an opening (56 – Fig. 2) such that the interior space is in fluid communication with the opening and the frame forms a seal with the wall (col. 6, line 51 – col. 7, line 5); delivering material from a clean room environment (18 – Fig. 2) through the opening and into the interior space of the frame (col. 7, lines 13-17); and sealing the interior space using a closure (46 – Fig. 2; col. 7, line 13-17 and col. 5, lines 34-36).
However, Barrows does not disclose that the material is a spool of glass although Burrows further discloses that the method may be used in industries that require a clean room environment (col. 1, lines 12-35).
Schott discloses storing and moving a roll of glass in a clean room environment (pg. 8, fifth full paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have used the method of Barrows with the material being a spool of glass since Barrows discloses that the method can be used with materials that require a clean room environment and Schott teaches that a spool of glass requires a clean room environment.
Regarding claim 17, Barrows, as modified by Schott, further discloses exposing the spool of glass to the clean room environment prior to positioning the frame against the wall and as the spool of glass is delivered through the opening (as disclosed in Barrows, col. 7, lines 13-17, the material and hence glass spool is already in the clean room and then is transferred after the closure opens).
Regarding claim 20, Barrows, as modified by Schott, further discloses positioning one or more spacers (171, 172 – Fig. 4, Schott) at ends of the spool of glass, the one or more spacers comprising an elastically deformable material (para. 0066, last sentence, Schott).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrows (US 6679672 B1) in view of Schott (DE 102011081172 A1) and Capitao (US 4570794).
Regarding claim 18, Barrows, as modified by Schott discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 16.
However, Barrows, as modified by Schott, does not delivering a second spool of glass.
Capitao discloses a method of packaging spools, wherein a first spool of material (26’ – Fig. 1) has been transferred to the interior of a frame (formed by 12 – Fig. 1, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22 – Fig. 2) and a second spool of material (26’’ – Fig. 1) has been transferred to the interior of the frame (col. 3, line 64 – col. 4, line 21) such that the first spool of material and the second spool of material are arranged in an end-to-end configuration (see Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Capitao, would have recognized that the spools of Capitao are analogous to the spool of glass of Schott since both are a web of material wound around a core. Similarly, the frame of Capitao is analogous to the frame of Barrows since they are both containers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Barrows to deliver a second spool of glass to the interior space and arranged the spools end-to-end as taught by Capitao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow many spools to be moved at one time, thereby saving time.
Regarding claim 19, Barrows, as modified by Schott and Capitao, further teaches positioning a shaft (40 – Fig. 1, Capitao) within the interior space extending through the spool of glass and the second spool of glass (see Fig. 1, Capitao).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
2/17/2026