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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/23/25 has been entered.
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 11-14 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.
In claim 11 it is unclear how the aperture is defined. Claim 11 recites that the insert comprising a plurality of body members are configured to be mounted to each other to define the first aperture for receiving a cable, however claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, also recites that the insulating liner is arranged in the aperture. As seen in figure 11 of the present application, the insulating liner is located outside the insert, and not within the aperture defined by the insert. As such it is unclear how the aperture is meant to be structured and arranged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frizzell(US9551438).
[claim 1] Frizzell teaches a cable retaining apparatus comprising: a body(10) defining at least one first aperture(central space in fig 1) for receiving a respective cable(12); an insulating liner(62) arranged in the, or each, first aperture for preventing electrical conduction from a cable to a surface of the body facing the cable; and at least one insulation member(flange portion of 62, A in annotated fig 1 below) configured for preventing electrical conduction from a cable to a surface of the body facing away from the cable(outer face of 18, fig 1), wherein the at least one insulation member extends from the insulating liner and protrudes from the first aperture in which the insulating liner is arranged(as seen in figure 1 reproduced below, the insulating liner A formed as a flange on the insulating member 62, protrudes outside the first aperture) to lengthen an electrical conduction path from a cable to the surface of the body facing away from the cable and wherein the at least one insulation member is angled away from a cable at an angle in use(fig 1). Frizzell however may not teach that the angle is an acute angle. As shown in figure 1 below, the insulation member is angled away from the aperture, and any cable received therein, at what appears to be a right angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the angle an acute angle, i.e. less that 90 degrees, as without undue experimentation, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select a desired angle for the insulation member as a matter of simple design choice.
[claim 10] wherein the at least one insulation member extends beyond edges of the body in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the at least one aperture(as seen in fig 1, insulation member A extends beyond edges of body member 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frizzell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dodd et al.(US5742982).
[claim 11] Frizzell teaches an apparatus as detailed above, Frizzell may not teach that the apparatus comprises at least one insert comprising a plurality of body members configured to be mounted to each other to define said first aperture for receiving a cable, wherein each body member of the plurality of body members comprises an engaging device configured to engage a corresponding engaging device on another body member of the plurality of body members to prevent electrical conduction from a cable received in the first aperture to a body of the cable retaining apparatus. Dodd teaches a similar cable retaining apparatus comprising at least one insert(106,108,110,112,114,116) comprising a plurality of body members(upper and lower halves of each insert) configured to be mounted to each other to define a said aperture for receiving a cable, wherein each body member of the plurality of body members comprises an engaging device(136) configured to engage a corresponding engaging device(138) on another body member of the plurality of body members to prevent electrical conduction from a cable received in the aperture to a body of the cable retaining apparatus. The inserts allowing the apparatus to accommodate cables of different diameters(C4 L44-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the insert of Dodd with the apparatus of Frizzell, as this would allow the apparatus to accommodate cables of different diameters as taught by Dodd.
[claim 12] wherein the engaging device comprises at least one protrusion(136) and/or first recess(138) configured to engage a corresponding first recess(138) and/or protrusion(136) on the another body member.
[claim 13] further comprising at least one flange portion(130) extending from a respective end portion of each body member of the plurality of body members.
[claim 14] wherein at least one said body member defines a respective second recess(124) for receiving an elongate member arranged adjacent the cable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,10-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632