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 § 112
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are 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.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite. On lines 24-25, the phrase “without use of additional fastening elements” is unclear. What constitutes “without use of additional fastening elements”? What structure is the applicant attempting to claim or set forth with the phrase “without use of additional fastening elements”?
Claim 7 is vague and indefinite. On line 8, the phrase “first base securing sheet connect to the” is incomplete. Note that following phrase is the “wherein” clause.
Claim 13 is vague and indefinite. On lines 4-5, the phrase “opposite first base” is unclear. Are applicant’s setting forth a new first base or should the phrase have been --the first base--.
Claims 2-10 and 12-15 are rejected due to their dependency upon independent Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 9-10, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emes (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0066822).
With respect to Claim 1, Emes, Figures 1-5, teaches a dispensing system for cable spools, comprising
a spool 24 comprising:
a substantially cylindrical structure (See Figure 3) around an axis 36, the substantially cylindrical structure adapted to hold a cable 38 wound around the axis 36;
a first base 34 (bottom in Figure 3) having a first side and a second side opposite the first side, the first base being coupled on the first side to the substantially cylindrical structure; and
at least one first coupling surface disposed on the second side of the first base;
a support base 10 adapted to be coupled to the spool and to support the spool 24 as the cable 38 is dispensed, the support base comprising:
a fixed part 14;
a rotary part 12 coupled to the fixed part, the rotary part adapted to rotate;
at least one second coupling surface 18 disposed on the rotary part 12,
wherein the at least one second coupling surface of the rotary part 12 is adapted to be coupled (via fasteners 20) to the at least one first coupling surface of the spool 34 (bottom surface of plate 34) without use of additional fastening elements (Note that fasteners 20 are the only elements that “couple” the second coupling surface to at least one first coupling surface of the spool. Therefore, there are no additional fastening elements);
wherein the support base is adapted to be coupled to the spool 24 by coupling the at least one first coupling surface of the spool to the at least one second coupling surface of the rotary part;
wherein the support base extends substantially in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the spool when the spool is coupled to the support base.
With respect to Claim 2, Emes further teaches wherein the at least one first coupling surface comprises a plurality of first coupling surfaces disposed on the second side of the first base.
With respect to Claim 3, Emes further teaches wherein at least one of the at least one coupling surface and the at least one second coupling surface extends annularly around the axis of the spool 24.
With respect to Claim 4, Emes further teaches wherein the support base has a substantially circular or polygonal shape.
With respect to Claim 5, Emes further teaches wherein the support base comprises a central through hole.
With respect to Claim 6, Emes further teaches wherein the at least one first coupling surface and the at least one second coupling surface are arranged substantially flat on the rotary part, respectively.
With respect to Claim 9, Emes further teaches a dispensing assembly for a cable and comprising a cable and the dispensing system cable spools according to Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 10, Emes further teaches wherein at least one of the first base of the spool and the rotary part of the support base comprises a positioning mark 14 to mark a securing position of the spool with respect to the rotary part of the support base.
With respect to Claim 14, Emes further teaches wherein the at least one second coupling surface comprises a plurality of second coupling surfaces disposed on the rotary part.
With respect to Claim 15, Emes further teaches wherein:
the at least one first coupling surface comprises a plurality of first coupling surfaces disposed on the second side of the first base;
the at least one second coupling surface comprises a plurality of second coupling surfaces disposed on the rotary part; and
the plurality of first coupling surfaces and the plurality of second coupling surfaces are arranged with angular symmetry with respect to the axis of the spool.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emes as applied to Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Bookland (U.S. Patent No. 10,781,069).
With respect to Claim 8, Emes is advanced above.
Emes teaches all the elements of the dispensing system except for wherein the support base comprises a guiding flange adapted to guide a positioning of the spool to a securing position.
However, Bookland, Figures 1-10, teaches a guiding flange 18 to guide the positioning of the spool to a securing position. See Figures 1 and 8-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a guiding flange, as taught by Bookland, for the purpose of protecting the spool.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emes as applied to Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Snow (U.S. Patent No. 6,398,148).
With respect to Claims 12-13, Emes is advanced above.
Emes teaches all the elements of the dispensing system except for a handle for transporting the spool or the dispensing assembly; wherein the handle is centered with respect to the base of the spool opposite to the base for securing said spool.
However, Snow, Figures 1-7, teaches a handle 38 for transporting the spool or the dispensing assembly; wherein the handle is centered with respect to the first base of the spool on a side of the substantially cylindrical structure opposite first base for securing said spool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Emes with a handle, as taught by Snow, for the purpose of allowing a user to carry the dispenser.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 7 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the entire combination of elements of the dispensing system set forth including a rotary part securing sheet wherein the at least one second coupling surface is attached to the rotary part securing sheet and the first base of the spool comprises a first base securing sheet connected to the, wherein the at least one first coupling surface is attached to the first base securing sheet.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest a rotary part securing sheet wherein the at least one second coupling surface is attached to the rotary part securing sheet and the first base of the spool comprises a first base securing sheet connected to the, wherein the at least one first coupling surface is attached to the first base securing sheet as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the dispensing system in the manner required by the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Note that while the same references were used to reject the claims, the amendments required different interpretations of the claims.
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 WILLIAM ARAUZ RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM MDT.
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.
/WILLIAM A. RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights