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
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation in line 11, “a state in which each of the unit bundles is opened” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what applicant intends to claim by this language. For the purpose of examination, Examiner assumes applicant intends for “opened” to mean a state in which the packaging is opened and the bundle is visible or a state in which the cord is being drawn out of the bundle.
Claims 2-15 are rejected because they depend from rejected Claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chesler, US5193756.
Regarding independent claim 1, Chesler discloses a cable bundle (14, 20, Fig. 2) comprising: a cable that is wound (14, Fig. 2); unit bundles (15a, Fig. 4) stacked in a stacking direction perpendicular to a first direction that is a circumferential direction of the cable bundle (15a, 15b stacked perpendicular to circumferential direction of winding, Fig. 4); connecting parts (14, 20, Fig. 2), wherein each of the unit bundles comprises a first loop and a second loop that are stacked in the stacking direction (16a, 16b, stacked in stacking direction 15a, 15b, etc. Fig. 4), the first loop and the second loop are connected via a respective one of the connecting parts (20, 14 connect first loop and second loop 16a, 16b, Fig. 2, 4) such that a figure-8 shaped loop including the first loop and the second loop is formed in a state in which each of the unit bundles is opened (Figure 4 shows 16a, 16b forming figure-8 shaped loop in a state in which the bundle is opened, Fig. 4) and the connecting parts of adjacent ones of the unit bundles in the stacking direction are disposed at different positions in the first direction (Column 2, lines 66- Column 3, line 14; Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 3, Chesler discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and the unit bundles (15a, b, c, Fig. 4) include: a first unit bundle (15c, Fig. 4); a second unit bundle stacked on the first unit bundle (15b, Fig. 4); and a third unit bundle stacked on the second unit bundle (15a, Fig. 4), the cable bundle further comprises: a first intermediate part that is interposed between the first unit bundle and the second unit bundle and connects the first unit bundle and the second unit bundle to each other (intermediate section of 16e shown in Fig. 4 between bundles 15a, 15b is duplicated between bundles 15c and 15b, Fig. 4); and a second intermediate part that is interposed between the second unit bundle and the third unit bundle and connects the second unit bundle and the third unit bundle to each other (intermediate section 16e connects bundle 15b to 15a, Fig. 4),the first intermediate part and the second intermediate part are wound in the first direction (intermediate portions 16e wound in circumferential direction of wound cable 14, Fig. 4), and the first intermediate part and the second intermediate part are disposed at different positions in the first direction (intermediate parts 16e (14, 20) disposed at different positions alternating closer to 12a and 12b between each bundle 15a, 15b, 15c, Fig. 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, Chesler discloses the limitations of claim 1, and an intermediate part (16e, Fig. 4) that: is interposed between the unit bundles (between 15a, 15b, 15c, Fig. 4), connects the unit bundles to each other (16e connects 15a, 15b, 15c, via cord 14 at points 20, Fig. 2, 4), and is wound in the first direction (16e is wound in Figure 8 direction, Fig. 1, 4), wherein the cable has an opposite twist opposite to a twist caused by the intermediate part when the cable is wound (Column 3, lines 22-34).
Regarding claim 5, Chesler discloses the limitations of claim 4, and a rotation number of the opposite twist is less than or equal to a value obtained by dividing a total length of the intermediate part by an average circumferential length of the cable bundle (Column 3, lines 22-34).
Regarding claim 6, Chesler discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein each of the connecting parts (14, 20, Fig. 2, 4) is a part of the cable between a first intersection of the first loop and a second intersection of the second loop, and the connecting parts are wound in the first direction (see braided section of 14, 20, Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 7, Chesler discloses the limitations of claim 6, and wherein the connecting parts of adjacent ones of the unit bundles in the stacking direction and an intermediate part connecting the unit bundles to each other form one circumference in the first direction (16e is composed of intermediate part connecting bundle 15a, 15b, and connecting part 14, 20 connecting 16e to 16d, Fig. 4 forming one circumference in the first direction, figure 8 direction).
Regarding claim 8, Chesler discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the first loop is formed by winding the cable in a normal winding, and the second loop is formed by winding the cable in the normal winding (16a is wound in a normal figure-8, and 16b is wound in a normal figure-8, Fig. 4).
Regarding independent claim 9, Chesler discloses a method of manufacturing a cable bundle comprising a cable that is wound (Column 1, lines 32-44), the method comprising:
Forming unit bundles (15a, 15b, 15c, etc. Fig. 4) each of which comprises a first loop (16a, Fig. 4) and a second loop (16b, Fig. 4) that are connected via a respective one of connecting parts (14, 20, Fig. 1, 2, 4) and are stacked (151, 15b, 15c are stacked, Fig. 4); and
Stacking the unit bundles such that the connecting parts are disposed at different positions in a first direction that is a circumferential direction of the cable bundle (Column 2, lines 66- Column 3, line 14; Fig. 1, 2), wherein the first loop and the second loop are connected via a respective one of the connecting parts such that a figure-8 shaped loop including the first loop and the second loop is formed in a state in which each of the unit bundles is opened (Figure 4 shows 16a, 16b forming figure-8 shaped loop in a state in which the bundle is opened, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Chesler discloses the limitations of claim 9, and wherein step (a) comprises: forming the first loop by twisting the cable in a third direction (Column 3, lines 22-34); forming the second loop by twisting the cable in a fourth direction opposite to the third direction (Column 3, lines 22-34); and forming each of the unit bundles by stacking the first loop and the second loop (15a is formed by stacking of 16a, 16b, etc. Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mubachi, Foreign Patent Document, JP2018063812 (see applicant provided translation for reference to page and line numbers).
Regarding claim 13, Mubachi discloses a cable bundle manufacturing apparatus that manufactures a cable bundle comprising a cable that is wound (1, Fig. 1), the cable bundle manufacturing apparatus comprising: a fixer that fixes a movement of the cable in an axial direction of the cable at a fixed position on the cable (28, Fig. 1); a conveyor that conveys the cable toward the fixed position (5, Fig. 1); a twister that forms a loop of the cable by twisting the cable conveyed by the conveyor (P, Fig. 1); a first rotator (7, Fig. 1) that has a placement surface (29, 30, Fig. 1) on which the loop formed by the twister is placed and stacked (102 placed and stacked in 29, 30, Fig. 1) and rotates the placement surface about a first axis substantially parallel to a normal direction of the placement surface (R, Fig. 1).
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) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chesler, US5193756.
Regarding claim 2, Chesler discloses the limitations of claim 1, and an intermediate part that: is interposed between the unit bundles and connects the unit bundles to each other (16e, 14, 20, Fig. 2, 4), and is wound in the first direction such that the connecting parts of adjacent ones of the unit bundles in the stacking direction are disposed at different positions in the first direction (intermediate parts 16e (14, 20) disposed at different positions alternating closer to 12a and 12b between each bundle 15a, 15b, 15c, Fig. 1-4).
Chesler does not disclose the different positions are within a range of 90 degrees to 270 degrees in the first direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connecting parts of adjacent ones of the unit bundles in the stacking direction disposed at different positions within a range of 90 degrees to 270 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would have been motivated to optimize the placement of the connecting parts to ensure connecting parts don’t overlap excessively and bulge in order to optimize storage space when wound.
Regarding claim 12, Chesler discloses the limitations of claim 9, and wherein the cable bundle comprises an intermediate part that is interposed between the unit bundles and connects the unit bundles to each other (16e, 14, 20, Fig. 2, 4), and comprises winding in the first direction such that the connecting parts of adjacent ones of the unit bundles in the stacking direction are disposed at different positions in the first direction (intermediate parts 16e (14, 20) disposed at different positions alternating closer to 12a and 12b between each bundle 15a, 15b, 15c, Fig. 1-4).
Chesler does not disclose the different positions are within a range of 90 degrees to 270 degrees in the first direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connecting parts of adjacent ones of the unit bundles in the stacking direction disposed at different positions within a range of 90 degrees to 270 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would have been motivated to optimize the placement of the connecting parts to ensure connecting parts don’t overlap excessively and bulge in order to optimize storage space when wound.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mubachi, Foreign Patent Document, JP2018063812 (see applicant provided translation for reference to page and line numbers).
Regarding claim 14, Mubachi discloses the limitations of claim 13, and the twister forms a first loop by twisting the cable in a third direction (loop 102 formed by twist direction P, Fig. 1).
Mubachi does not disclose the twister forms a second loop by twisting the cable in a fourth direction opposite to the third direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a second loop by twisting the cable in a fourth direction opposite to the third direction, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. One would have been motivated to make this modification to accommodate different winding patterns for a variety of cable and wire packaging constraints.
Regarding claim 15, Mubachi discloses the limitations of claim 13, and a first rotator.
Mubachi does not disclose a second rotator that rotates a drum that supplies the cable about a second axis substantially parallel to a direction in which the cable is send out from the drum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second rotator, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the twist of the wire/cables as they pay out from the drum and dispenser.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, Chesler, a close prior art teaches a majority of the features of claim 10, however Chesler alone, nor the prior art in combination teaches, suggests, or renders obvious forming the unit bundles by folding each of the third loops at each of the connecting parts and stacking the first loop and the second loop. One would not have been motivated to add such a step in the method of manufacturing the cable bundle because it would require additional machinery and make the production of the cable bundle more complicated and expensive than the manufacturing method disclosed by Chesler and other prior art methods.
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