Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/231,538

HYRID CABLE HANGER SYSTEM

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Aug 08, 2023
Examiner
EPPS, TODD MICHAEL
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Maxdao Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
704 granted / 967 resolved
+20.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1005
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 967 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . This is a final Office Action for serial number 18/231,538, Hybrid Cable Hanger System, filed on August 8, 2023. 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) 1-6, and 8-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,992,802 to Campbell. Regarding claim 1, Campbell ‘802 discloses a hybrid cable hanger system (Fig. 3), comprising: at least one stackable enclosure (10, 12) wherein the at least one stackable enclosure comprising a center aperture (40) within a circular holder (56, 58, 60, 62) on the exterior of the enclosure coupled to a set of alternating clamp fingers for gripping a cable; installation holes (54 – #10/#12) positioned to secure secure rubber parts of the cable against the set of alternating clamp fingers, wherein the center aperture is positioned between the installation holes; and a fastener (86, 90) to apply the clamping pressure to the enclosure through the center aperture and sets the variable size of the set of alternating clamp fingers. Regarding claim 2, Campbell ‘802 discloses wherein the fastener comprises a nut and bolt setup (86, 90). Regarding claim 3, Campbell ‘802 discloses wherein the circular holder is shaped in a circular zigzag groove pattern (44, 20, and 48 – top surface in Fig. 1). Regarding claim 4, Campbell ‘802 discloses wherein the at least one stackable enclosure further comprises an external reinforcement rib (42) and an internal reinforcement rib (30, 32) to enhance the structural strength of the enclosure. Regarding claim 5, see 112 rejection, Campbell ‘802 discloses wherein the exterior of the at least one stackable enclosure further comprises a groove cut (between “42” – top portion) to allow the serrated grooves to clamp multiple enclosures in a staggered manner when “they” are tightened (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 6, Campbell ‘802 discloses wherein the at least one stackable enclosure comprises a mail limiting shaft (52) which fits with an opposing female limiting hole (54) and are symmetrically to prevent the enclosure from being misaligned. Regarding claim 8, Campbell ‘802 discloses wherein the at least one stackable enclosure comprises two sets of alternating clamp fingers (contact surfaces opposite ends of the circular holder) on opposite ends of the stackable enclosure, wherein the center aperture within the circular holder (56, 58, 60, 62) is located between the two sets of alternating clamp fingers (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 9, Campbell ‘802 discloses wherein the two sets of alternating clamp fingers on opposite ends hold the same size cables (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 11, Campbell ‘802 discloses wherein the two sets of alternating clamp fingers on opposite ends hold the different size cables (Fig. 5). 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell ‘802. Campbell ‘802 discloses wherein at least one stackable enclosure is composed of PVC (col. 3, line 23), but do not disclose one of the following materials: polyproplylene or nylon. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PVC to any preferred materials like Polyproplylene or nylon, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in this art to select a known material with any polymers and commonly used in manufacturing, involves only routine skill in the art. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell ‘802 in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,530,536 to Hashimoto. Campbell ‘802 fails to disclose wherein the two sets of alternating clamp fingers on opposite ends includes a rubber sleeve within one set of the alternating clamp fingers on opposite ends. Nevertheless, Hashimoto ‘536 discloses a rubber (3) for fitting and holding pipes through hole. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alternating clamp fingers of Campbell ‘802 to include a rubber sleeve because one would have motivation to provide a fitting and holding pipes as taught by Hashimoto ‘536. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Campbell fails to disclose installation holes positioned to secure rubber parts against the set of alternating clamp fingers. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Attention is directed to Campbell’s reference, Figure 1, Campbell discloses two installation holes (54) on opposite sides of the enclosure, and wherein the cable (106) has a rubber coating (Fig. 3), and the center aperture is positioned between the installation holes. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TODD M. EPPS whose telephone number is (571) 272-8282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm. 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 571-272-4797. 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. /TODD M EPPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 November 24, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 08, 2023
Application Filed
May 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 19, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583545
A Rear Mirror Assembly With Anti-Rotation Protection
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584587
BRACKET, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HANGING ARTICLES UNDER A STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573828
WIRE STUB OUT CLIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564376
POSITIONING ARM APPARATUS FOR ULTRASOUND HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560277
DISPLAY MOUNTING SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 967 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month