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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (10790654) in view of Sunaga et al. (8946556).
Re-claim 1, Ling et al. discloses an dead end cable fitting comprising a plurality of wires (Figs 3-11) formed into an arcuate portion (200), a first helical leg formed from the plurality of wires (Fig. 5) extending from one end of the arcuate portion, and a second helical leg formed from the plurality of wires (Fig. 6) extending from an opposite end of the arcuate portion, wherein the first and second helical legs together form a double helix that defines an axial opening between the first helical leg and the second helical leg, wherein the axial opening has an internal profile, wherein the first helical leg and the second helical leg are wrapped around the internal profile, and wherein the arcuate portion forms a loop portion that attaches a cable (102) disposed in the axial opening to a fixing point at one end of the double helix (Figs 2 and 4-7). Ling et al. does not disclose the internal profile being a non-circular internal profile with narrow ends at a major axis and wide ends at a minor axis. Sunaga et al. discloses an apparatus comprising an elongated fitting (10) which includes a first leg (20) and a second leg (20), wherein the first and second legs together form an axial opening having a non-circular internal profile with narrow ends at a major axis and wide ends at a minor axis (Figs 2, 6, & 10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the internal profile of Ling et al. to have a non-circular internal profile with narrow ends at a major axis and wide ends at a minor axis as taught by Sunaga et al. in order to accommodate an object (i.e., a cable) having a non-circular cross-section (i.e., elliptical).
Re-claim 2, Ling et al., as modified, discloses the internal profile being an ellipse.
Re-claim 3, Ling et al., as modified, discloses the first and second legs being wrapped together to form the double helix having the non-circular internal profile which forms the axial opening with a closed shape that defines both the major axis and the minor axis (Fig. 7 of Ling).
Re-claim 4, Ling et al., as modified, discloses the double helix having the non-circular internal profile extending between a distal end of the first and second legs and a crossover point located wherein the first helical leg and the second helical leg meet the arcuate portion.
Re-claim 10, although not disclosed in Ling et al., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use galvanized steel or stainless steel wire for the elongated fitting of Ling et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting apparatus since such steels are well-known in the art of their relative high strength and corrosion-resistant.
Re-claim 11, Ling et al. discloses a method for supporting a cable with a dead end cable fitting which has a first helical leg connected to a second helical leg through an arcuate portion, the cable having an external profile, the method comprising wrapping the first helical leg and the second helical leg of the dead end cable fitting around the cable such that an arcuate portion from which the first helical leg and the second helical leg extend forms a loop portion at one end of the dead end cable fitting, wherein the first helical leg is formed from wires extending from one end of the arcuate portion, wherein the second helical leg is formed from wires extending from an opposite end of the arcuate portion, wherein each of the first and second helical legs define a double helix disposed around the cable, the double helix having an internal profile, and wherein the internal profile of the double helix matches the external profile around the cable. Ling et al. does not disclose the external profile and the internal profile being non-circular profile including narrow ends at a major axis and wide ends at a minor axis. Sunaga et al. discloses a method for supporting a cable having a non-circular external profile including narrow ends at a major axis and wide ends at a minor axis, the method comprising wrapping a first leg (20) and a second leg (20) around the, wherein the first and second legs together form an axial opening having a non-circular internal profile with narrow ends at a major axis and wide ends at a minor axis, and wherein the non-circular internal profile matches the non-circular external profile around the cable (Figs 2, 6, & 10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the internal profile of Ling et al. to have a non-circular internal profile with narrow ends at a major axis and wide ends at a minor axis as taught by Sunaga et al. in order to accommodate an object (i.e., a cable) having a non-circular cross-section (i.e., elliptical). It is noted that in the modified method of Ling et al., the first helical leg and the second helical leg grip each of the narrow ends of the major axis and each of the wide ends at the minor axis.
Re-claim 5, Ling et al. discloses a distal end of one of the legs extending further than the other of the legs (col. 11, lines 42-43).
Re-claims 7-8, the modified method of Ling et al. discloses providing gripping portions of the first helical leg and the second helical leg with a surface finish, wherein wrapping the first helical leg and the second helical leg around the cable includes wrapping each of the gripping portions around the non-circular internal profile in contact with an outer surface of the cable across the major axis and the minor axis, wherein the surface coating comprises grit provided on an internal surface of at least one of the legs (col. 8, line 59); a contact surface area between the cable gripping portion and the cable extending entirely around the wide end and the narrow end of the cable.
Re-claim 12, the modified method of Ling et al. discloses wrapping the first helical leg and the second helical leg around the cable causes the double helix to contact an outer surface of the cable around the non-circular external profile, including along and around the wide ends and the narrow ends of the cable, each of the first and second helical legs being continuously wrapped across both the major axis and the minor axis of the non-circular external profile, and the non-circular internal profile of the double helix and the non-circular profile of the external profile of the cable being elliptical.
Re-claim 13, Ling et al., as modified, discloses the double helix forming a cable gripping portion that is a channel in which the cable is housed, and extending between a distal end of the first and second helical legs and a crossover point located at the arcuate portion.
Re-claim 14, Ling et al., as modified, discloses a contact surface area between the cable gripping portion and the cable extending entirely around the cable (see Ling Fig. 7 and Sunaga Figs 2, 6, & 10), and the cable gripping portion being provided with a surface coating at the contact surface area around each of the wide ends and the narrow ends of the cable.
Re-claim 16, Ling et al., as modified, discloses wrapping the first helical leg and the second helical leg around the cable causes the major axis and the minor axis of the non-circular internal profile to each intersect the first helical leg and the second helical leg.
Re-claim 22, the modified method of Ling et al. discloses attaching the cable to a fixing point via the loop portion (Fig. 1), wherein the wires forming the first helical leg and the second helical leg extend through the arcuate portion, forming the loop portion attached to the fixing point, and wherein each of the wires forming the first helical leg and the second helical leg grip the cable by contact with an outer surface of the cable (col. 3 lines 43-48, support device 106 may applied over an outer sheath of the wire 102, such that the support device may provide radial compression to the wire 102) along the wide ends and the narrow ends of the non-circular external profile, across the minor axis and the major axis. It is noted that since the modified method of Ling et al. comprises steps as claimed, tensile load will be transferred from the outer surface of the cable to the fixing point through the loop portion.
Re-claim 17, Ling et al. discloses a method of assembling a dead end cable fitting, the method comprising providing an arcuate portion (200), a first helical leg (Fig. 4) extending from one end of the arcuate portion, and a second helical leg (Fig. 4) extending from an opposite end of the arcuate portion, wherein the first helical leg is formed from a plurality of wires and the second helical leg is formed from the plurality of wires; and forming a channel having an internal profile (Fig. 7) with the first and second legs, wherein forming the channel includes wrapping the plurality of wires in a double helix that defines the internal profile. Ling et al. does not disclose forming the channel such that the internal profile is a non-circular internal profile having narrow ends at a major axis and wide ends at a minor axis. Sunaga et al. discloses a method comprising forming a channel having a non-circular internal profile with a first leg (20) and a second leg (20), wherein the channel includes narrow ends at a major axis and wide ends at a minor axis (Figs 2, 6, & 10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the channel, when forming the channel, of Ling et al. to have a non-circular internal profile having narrow ends at a major axis and wide ends at a minor axis, as taught by Sunaga et al. to accommodate an object (i.e., a cable) having a non-circular cross-section (i.e., elliptical).
Re-claim 18, Ling et al., as modified, discloses the internal profile being closed and elliptical.
Re-claim 19, Ling et al., as modified, discloses wrapping the first and second helical legs together in a single component to form the double helix having the non-circular internal profile.
Re-claim 20, Ling et al., as modified, discloses the major axis and the minor axis that each intersect the wires forming at least one of the first and second legs.
Re-claim 21, Ling et al., as modified, discloses the wide ends and the narrow ends of the non-circular internal profile match wide ends and narrow ends of the cable (Sunga, Figs 2, 6, & 10) causing the first and second helical legs to grip the wide ends and the narrow ends of the cable such that at least a portion of each wire in the plurality of wires is in contact with an outer surface of the cable around the wide ends and the narrow ends of the non-circular external profile.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. in view of Sunaga et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (2016/0099092).
Ling et al. and Sunaga et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed including the first and second helical legs together in a single component wrapped around the cable, such that at least a portion of each wire in the first set of wires and the second set of wires is in contact with an outer surface of the cable around the narrow ends of the major axis and the wide ends of the minor axis, wherein at least two wires in the first set of wires form the first helical leg, and wherein at least two wires in the second set of wires form the second leg.
Ling et al. and Sunaga et al. do not disclose the first leg and the second leg being bonded together. Huang et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a helix ([0025]) including a plurality of wires which are bonded together (via adhesive 106) in a single component wrapped around a cable (101/102). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to bond all the wires in the first set of wires and the second set of wires together, as taught by Huang et al., to secure the wires on the cable. It is noted that in the modified apparatus of Ling et al., the first and second helical legs are bonded together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments primarily direct to the Sunaga reference. Examiner, again, would like to clarify that Sunaga is relied upon only to support the position that an internal profile formed by two legs can have a non-circular internal profile. Features of loop portion, arcuate portion, fixing-point attachment mechanism, and an internal profile formed by two legs wrapped around a cable are already disclosed in Ling.
Applicant argues that the cited art does not support a prima facie case of obviousness. Examiner would disagree. It has been held that the examiner's burden of establishing prima facie obviousness is satisfied by a showing of structural similarity between the claims and prior art; it does not require a showing of some suggestion or expectation in the prior art that the structurally similar subject matter will have the same or a similar utility as that discovered by the applicant. In re Dillon, 16 USPQ 2d 1897.
Applicant argues that translating the sheet-shell construction disclosed in Sunaga to the wire formed windings disclosed in Ling is not a routine shape substitution. Examiner would disagree because there is no substitution here, NO substitution between the two legs of Ling formed by wires and two legs of Sunaga formed by two shells. Instead, the Office Action (OA) modifying the internal shape already formed by the wires of Ling to have a non-circular shape formed by the wires.
Applicant argues that Sunaga provides no teaching or suggestion as to how flexible helical wires could be wound to achieve a non-circular profile. Examiner would disagree. Sunaga teaches that to form an internal non-circular profile, the two legs (20, 20) are wrapped on an object which has an external non-circular profile matching with the internal non-circular formed by the two legs.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, applicant argues that Sunaga does not disclose any portion of the shells 20 as being formed from wires, wrapped around a non-circular internal profile, or forming a loop portion that attaches a cable to a fixing point. Examiner would disagree because Ling teaches an internal profile formed by wires divided into two legs and wrapped around a cable (col. 4, line 49 to col. 5, line 40).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights