DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 line 2 recites: “…portion is the through hole…”. This should be corrected to read - - portion is a through hole - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Eyles (US 10,250,024 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Eyles discloses a holder arrangement (see Fig. 1) for holding routing media to a support structure (110) of a vehicle, the holder arrangement comprising:
a spacer (205 and 350) configured for attachment to the support structure (see Fig. 3A), and
a bracket (210, see Fig. 5A) comprising:
a routing media supporting portion (arms on 210 in Fig. 5A) configured to support the routing media,
a spacer receiving portion (A in annotated Figure 5A below) for receiving the spacer (see Fig. 6A), and
a bracket axial locking arrangement (520, 525, and 610) arranged to engage a corresponding spacer axial locking arrangement (B in annotated Figure 3A below and 365 in Fig. 6C) comprised in the spacer to axially lock a received spacer,
wherein at least one of the spacer axial locking arrangement and the bracket axial locking arrangement comprises a circumferential groove (C in annotated Figure 6C below),
wherein the other of the spacer axial locking arrangement and the bracket axial locking arrangement comprises at least one corresponding protrusion (520),
wherein the groove comprises a first (D in annotated Figure 6C below) and a second side (E in annotated Figure 6C below) wall extending radially from a groove base and laterally to an axial direction (see Fig. 6C), the second side wall being closer to the support structure (110) compared to the first side wall when the spacer is received in the spacer receiving portion (see Fig. 6C),
wherein at least the first side wall forms a first angle with respect to the groove base such that a width of the base of the groove (F in annotated Figure 6C below) is wider than a width of the top of the groove (G in annotated Figure 6C below) in the axial direction,
wherein the at least one protrusion comprises a contact surface arranged to match the first side wall (see Fig. 6C), thereby forming a catch mechanism (see Fig. 6C),
wherein the spacer is configured to be attached to the support structure at a bolt hole arranged in the support structure (see NOTE below),
wherein the spacer comprises a spacer through hole (K in annotated Figure 3A below) configured for receiving a fastener (400 and 450) in the form of an elongated body of a bolt (see Fig. 4B) for attachment of the spacer to the support structure (see Fig. 2) at the bolt hole (see NOTE below), and
wherein the spacer comprises a fastener contacting surface (470) arranged on a side of the spacer facing away from the support structure (see Fig. 3A) when the spacer is attached to the support structure (see Fig. 2).
NOTE: The support structure is capable of having a bolt hole where the spacer is attached to the support structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 5A.
PNG
media_image2.png
458
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 3A.
PNG
media_image3.png
405
447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 6C.
PNG
media_image4.png
485
733
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 6C.
PNG
media_image5.png
365
473
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 6C.
PNG
media_image6.png
369
649
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 3A.
Regarding claim 2, Eyles discloses wherein the spacer axial locking arrangement (B in annotated Figure 3A above and 365 in Fig. 6C) comprises the groove (C in annotated Figure 6C above) and the bracket axial locking arrangement (520, 525, and 610) comprises the at least one protrusion (520).
Regarding claim 6, Eyles discloses wherein the second side wall (E in annotated Figure 6C above) forms a second angle with respect to the groove base (F in annotated Figure 6C above, see Fig. 6C).
Regarding claim 8, Eyles discloses wherein the spacer (205 and 350) comprises a rotational locking arrangement (B in annotated Figure 3A above) with axial spacer ridges arranged along the axial direction of the spacer (see Fig. 3A), and the bracket (210) comprises rotational locking arrangement (610) with at least one axial bracket ridge (see Figs. 6A and 6C) or an axial resilient ridge adapted to mate with the axial spacer ridges (see Figs. 6A and 6C).
Regarding claim 9, Eyles discloses wherein an inner wall (see annotated Figure 6C below) of the spacer receiving portion is circumferentially divided between a first wall portion type (ridges on 610) comprising the bracket rotational locking arrangement (610) and a second wall portion type (valleys on 610) comprising a bracket load transferring surface (see Fig. 6C),
wherein the bracket load transferring surface configured to engage the spacer (205 and 350) to snugly fit the bracket to the spacer when the spacer is received in the spacer receiving portion (see Fig. 6C), and
wherein the first and second wall portion types are alternately and repeatedly arranged along the entire circumference of the inner wall (see Fig. 5A).
PNG
media_image7.png
280
550
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7. Annotated Figure 6C.
Regarding claim 10, Eyles discloses wherein the spacer receiving portion (A in annotated Figure 5A above) is a through hole (see Fig. 6C) enabling access to the spacer (205 and 350) when the spacer is received in the spacer receiving portion (see Fig. 6C).
Regarding claim 11, Eyles discloses wherein the spacer (205 and 350) further comprises a first side perpendicularly arranged to the spacer through hole (K in annotated Figure 3A above, see Fig. 3A), the first side having the fastener contacting surface (470) which, in use, is configured as a counter holding surface for the fastener (400 and 450), and
wherein the fastener contacting surface has a smaller radial extension (I in annotated Figure 3A below) compared to a radial extension (J in annotated Figure 6C below) of the spacer receiving portion (A in annotated Figure 5A above), such that the bracket (210) can be attached to the spacer (205 and 350) subsequent to fastening the spacer to the support structure by means of the fastener (400 and 450, see Fig. 6B).
PNG
media_image8.png
359
398
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 8. Annotated Figure 3A.
PNG
media_image9.png
311
394
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 9. Annotated Figure 6C.
Regarding claim 12, Eyles discloses wherein the fastener contacting surface (470) comprises a reinforcement portion (470, see NOTE below).
NOTE: The contacting surface is a set of raised ribs that is considered a reinforcement portion.
Regarding claim 13, Eyles discloses wherein the reinforcement portion (470) comprises a reinforced structure (470, see NOTE below).
NOTE: The reinforcement portion is a reinforced structure by means of the raised ribs 470.
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyles (US 10,250,024 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Eyles discloses wherein the first angle (K in annotated Figure 6C below) of the first side wall (D in annotated Figure 6C below), but fails to disclose as claimed that the first angle is between 20 degrees and 45 degrees.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. first angle) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 and 350 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first angle of Eyles, such that it is between 20 degrees and 45 degrees, in order to provide a sufficient angle between the first and second side wall to provide a strong and sturdy structure, without creating an excessively large angle.
PNG
media_image10.png
318
509
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 10. Annotated Figure 6C.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyles (US 10,250,024 B2) in view of Isaji (US 2019/0293103 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Eyles discloses the support structure (110) and the holder arrangement of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose as claimed that a vehicle comprises the support structure.
However, Isaji teaches a cable holder (see Fig. 1) for attaching to a vehicle panel (see Fig. 1) in order to provide a means to safely hold separate vehicle wire groups near each other (see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holder arrangement of Eyles, with Isaji, such that the holder arrangement is used on a vehicle, in order to provide a means to safely hold separate vehicle wire groups near each other (see Abstract of Isaji).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 July 2026, page 2, recites: “…Eyles fails to disclose "a spacer configured for attachment to the support structure" because the part 205 forms an integrated part of the clamp 200, which is not "a support structure of a vehicle." Further, the "clip fitting 205" of Eyles is not a separate component and is not attached to any support structure. Instead, the clip fitting 205 forms an integral part of a clamp 200, which is clamped to trunking 110…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection set forth relies upon 205 and 350 as being the spacer and therefore being attached to the support structure 110 of a vehicle. See Figs. 1-2 and 7 of Eyles for support. It is unclear as to why the Applicant recites “the ‘clip fitting 205’ of Eyles is not a separate component”. As set forth in the rejection above, the spacer is configured for attachment to the support structure as required by the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 July 2026, pages 2-3, recite: “…Accordingly, Eyles fails to teach or suggest ‘wherein the spacer is configured to be attached to the support structure at a bolt hole arranged in the support structure,’ ‘wherein the spacer comprises a spacer through hole configured for receiving a fastener in the form of an elongated body of a bolt for attachment of the spacer to the support structure at the bolt hole,’ and ‘wherein the spacer comprises a fastener contacting surface arranged on a side of the spacer facing away from the support structure when the spacer is attached to the support structure,’ as recited in amended independent claim 1…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in the rejection above, all of the claimed limitations are taught or disclosed by the prior art used herein. See the rejections set forth above.
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 ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678