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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ratcheting mechanism, as required by claim 22; the different taper angles, as required by claim 23, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 appears to be missing language or punctuation after the added text.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 11, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 9,557,507) in view of Welborn (WO 2023/229927) and Lienart (US 4,872,626, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a cable retainer assembly comprising: a body (20, 30, 50) having a proximal end, a distal end positioned opposite the proximal end, and a body length extending from the proximal end to the distal end; a plurality of projections (Fig. 12) extending laterally about the body in a circumferential direction along the body length of the body; a plurality of slots (21, 31, 51) defined between each of the plurality of projections; a plurality of cross members (not labeled, see Fig. 9 for example) extending perpendicularly from each of the plurality of projections.
Welborn teaches a cross member (at 20, Fig. 4) being tapered such that a distance between the slot and the cross members (extending inward in Fig. 6) decreases from the proximal end (right in Figs. 4 and 5) of the body to the distal end (left in Figs. 4 and 5) of the body; and a wedge (14) configured to be received by the slots; wherein the wedge is tapered, such that each of the wedges is retained in the slots when the wedge translates from the proximal end of the body towards the distal end of the body, and a first end (left in Fig. 4) of the wedge extends (inward) from the proximal end of the body when the wedge is retained in the slot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a tapered wedge, as taught by Welborn, in order to securely and individually retain the wires in each slot.
Liu, as modified by Welborn, discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the wedges extending from the body, beyond the proximal end of the body. Lienart teaches a wedge extending from the body, beyond the proximal end of the body when the wedge is retained in the slot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use an extending wedge, as taught by Lienart, in order to ensure a secure placement/holding of the wedge in the slot.
Regarding claim 3, Liu, as modified by Welborn and Lienart, discloses each of the plurality of slots extending along the body length of the body from the proximal end of the body to the distal end of the body (Welborn Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Liu, as modified by Welborn, discloses each of the plurality of cross members extending along the body length of the body from the proximal end of the body to the distal end of the body (Welborn Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Liu, as modified by Welborn, discloses each of the plurality of wedges are tapered such that a wedge thickness of each of the plurality of wedges decreases along the body length from the distal end of the body towards the proximal end of the body (from the proximal end of the body to the distal end of the body, Welborn Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses a central opening (22, 52) that receives an attachment mechanism (10) through the body from the distal end to the proximal end (direction wise), and a fastener (nut 35, Fig. 15) that secures the attachment mechanism within the central opening at the proximal end, wherein the attachment mechanism secures the cable retainer assembly to an attachment location (intended use).
Regarding claim 11, Lienart teaches a wedge length of the wedge different than the body length of the body such that a first end of the wedge extends from the body, beyond the proximal end of the body when the wedge is retained in the slot (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 21, Lienart, teaches a wedge taper angle of each of the plurality of wedges (4) being greater than a cross member taper angle of each of the plurality of cross members (2a), such that each of the plurality of wedges are retained in each of the plurality of slots with at least a portion of each of the plurality of wedges extending from the body, beyond the proximal end of the body (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Liu discloses the plurality of projections and the plurality of cross members forming a T-shaped cross-section (Fig. 12).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Welborn and Lienart, and further in view of Kim (US 3,766,514).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches each of the plurality of wedges includes a plurality of teeth positioned on at least one surface, the plurality of teeth being configured to engage a cable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use teeth, as taught by Kim in order to increase friction and retention power.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Welborn and Lienart, and further in view of Peiffer (US 2,828,147).
Regarding claim 22, Peiffer teaches the use of a ratcheting mechanism (23) configured to secure a portion of each of the plurality of wedges that extends from the body when each of the plurality of wedges are retained in each of the plurality of slots. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a ratcheting mechanism, as taught by Peiffer, in order to prevent accidental movements.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Welborn and Lienart, and further in view of Palm et al. (US 1,656,226).
Regarding claim 25, Palm teaches the use of an attachment mechanism comprising a cable or wire (13) that extends through the central opening, and includes a looped end (around 14) that secures the cable retainer assembly to the attachment location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a looped attachment, as taught by Palm, in order to provide an easy and efficient attachment.
Claims 12-14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 9,557,507) in view of Welborn (WO 2023/229927) and Quesnel (US 6,389,213).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses a cable retainer assembly comprising: a body (20, 30, 50) having a proximal end, a distal end positioned opposite the proximal end, a body length extending from the proximal end to the distal end, and a plurality of sides extending along the body length; a plurality of channels (21, 31, 51) formed in each of the plurality of sides, wherein at least one of the plurality of channels (21, 51) defines an opening that receives an attachment mechanism (10, 90) through the body from the proximal end of the body to the distal end of the body (direction wise); a plurality of slots (21, 31, 51) defined within each of the plurality of channels.
Welborn teaches a slot being tapered and extending through the body from a proximal end to the distal end of the body (Figs. 4 and 5); and a wedge (14) configured to be received by the slot; wherein the wedge is tapered, such that the wedge is retained in the slots when the wedge translates from the proximal end of the body towards the distal end of the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a tapered wedge, as taught by Welborn, in order to securely and individually retain the wires in each slot.
Quesnel teaches a cable retainer assembly with a plurality of channels, wherein at least one of the plurality of channels defines an opening (receiving 26) that receives an attachment mechanism (18), and the attachment mechanism is configured to secure the cable retainer assembly to an attachment location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a retainer mechanism, as taught by Quesnel, in order to provide a secure dead end connection.
Regarding claim 13, Welborn teaches each of the plurality of slots extending along the body length of the body, a first end of each of the plurality of wedges is flush with the proximal end of the body, and a second end of each of the plurality of wedges is flush with the distal end of the body when each of the plurality of wedges are retained in each of the plurality of slots (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Liu, as modified by Welborn, discloses that each of the plurality of wedges are tapered such that a wedge thickness of each of the plurality of wedges decreases along the body length (from right to left in Fig. 4) from the distal end of the body toward the proximal end of the body, a first end of each of the plurality of wedges to a second end of each of the plurality of wedges.
Regarding claim 26, Quesnel teaches the body having a rectangular shape including a first side positioned opposite a second side, and wherein more than one of the plurality of channels is formed in the first side and more than one of the plurality of channels is formed in the second side. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a number of known shapes, such as rectangular, in order to meet the desired environment conditions or constrains.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Welborn and Quesnel, and further in view of Kim (US 3,766,514).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches each of the plurality of wedges includes a plurality of teeth positioned on at least one surface, the plurality of teeth being configured to engage a cable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use teeth, as taught by Kim in order to increase friction and retention power.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Welborn and Quesnel, and further in view of Lienart.
Regarding claim 17, Lienart teaches at least a first end of each of the plurality of wedges extends outward from the body, beyond the proximal end of the body in a direction away from the distal end of the body when each of the plurality of wedges are retained in each of the plurality of slots (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 19, Lienart teaches a wedge length of each of the plurality of wedges being greater than the body length of the body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use an extending wedge, as taught by Lienart, in order to ensure a secure placement/holding of the wedge in the slot.
Claim 20 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 9,557,507) in view of Welborn (WO 2023/229927).
Regarding claim 20, Welborn discloses a method of securing cables within a cable retainer assembly, the method comprising:(a) securing the cable retainer assembly to an attachment location using an attachment mechanism (16) that extends through an opening (40) of the cable retainer assembly; (b) inserting a first cable (200) of a plurality of cables into a first slot (24) of a plurality of slots defined between a plurality of projections that extend from a body of the cable retainer assembly; the cross members extending perpendicularly from the projections, each of the cross members being tapered such that a distance between each of the plurality of slots and each of the plurality of cross members decreases from a proximal end (right side in Fig. 4) of the body toward a distal end (left side in Fig. 4) of the body; (c) securing a first wedge (14) of a plurality of wedges to at least a portion of the first cable; (d) translating the first cable such that the first wedge is drawn into the first slot; (e) securing the first wedge within the first slot, such that the first cable is secured within the first slot of the body of the cable retainer assembly and at least a first end (right/middle side in Fig. 4) of the first wedge (14) lies flush (Fig. 4) with a proximal face of the body when the wedge is retained in the first slot (Fig. 4), or the first end of the first wedge extend from the body, beyond the proximal end of the body when the first wedge is retained in the first slot (non-required alternative); and (f) repeating steps (a) - (e) such that each of the plurality of cables are secured within each of the plurality of slots of the cable retainer assembly (on both the abstract and the background, Welborn discloses multiple termination and cables).
Liu teaches a plurality of slots defined between projections that extend laterally from a body of the cable retainer assembly in a circumferential direction, the body including a plurality of cross members extending perpendicularly from each of the projections (Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to arrange the slots and projections in a circumferential direction, as taught by Liu, in order to provide an efficient arrangement of cables in the retainer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as applied.
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 FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571)727-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
