DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/295,827, filed 4/4/2023, which is a continuation of 17/735,778, filed 5/3/2022, which claims priority to provisional applications 63/201,587 (filed 5/5/2021), 63/262,848 (filed 10/21/2021), and 63/329,683 (filed 4/11/2022), after the request for continued examination filed 7/2/2025.
It is noted that provisional applications 63/201,587 (filed 5/5/2021) and 63/262,848 (filed 10/21/2021) do not provide support for the claims as currently written.
Claims 1-20 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments, the prior art rejections are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 112(a) are presented herein.
The double patenting rejections of record are respectfully maintained.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent 5,463,189: This reference teaches a cable clip with differently-oriented inlets (Figs. 1-3).
U.S. Patent 5,188,318: This reference teaches a cable clip with differently-oriented inlets (Figs. 23-24).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 17/735,778 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, the limitations of Claim 13 of 17/735,778 anticipate the limitations of instant Claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Design Patent No. D1,012,042. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of D1,012,042 anticipates all of the limitations of instant Claims 1-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 have all been amended to recite “each first cable retention channel is accessible to remove or insert a corresponding single lead wire cable independent of every other lead wire cable” and “each of the plurality of second cable retention channels is accessible to remove or insert a corresponding single secondary wire cable independent of every other secondary wire cable.”
This limitation is not explicitly or inherently supported in the instant specification. The instant specification does not address the independent insertion/removal of cables, relative to other cables, in the device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soken (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0347804 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Soken teaches a cable retention clip (Fig. 8, paragraphs [0045]-[0047]).
The inset below teaches that the cable retention clip comprises a first body defining at least a pair of first cable retention channels that are positioned adjacent with each other.
The inset below teaches that each first cable retention channel has a parallel channel axis and a first inlet opening extending a length of each first cable retention channel.
The inset below teaches that the first body has a first base side (i.e. an interior side) opposite of each first inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that the clip comprises a second body defining a plurality of second cable retention channels that are positioned adjacent with each other and that each second cable retention channel has a parallel channel axis and a second inlet opening extending a length of each second cable retention channel.
The inset below teaches that the second body has a second base side (i.e. an interior side) opposite of each second inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that each first cable retention channel of the first pair of cable retention channels is configured to accommodate (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating) a single lead wire cable.
The inset below teaches that each first cable retention channel is accessible to remove or insert a corresponding single lead wire independent of every other lead wire cable, i.e. structurally capable of separately receiving a separate lead wire cable. It is noted that this limitation is considered to introduce new matter into the claims, as described above.
The inset below teaches that each of the plurality of second cable retention channels is configured to accommodate (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating) a single secondary cable wire.
The inset below teaches that each of the plurality of second cable retention channels is accessible to remove or insert a corresponding single secondary wire cable independent of every other secondary wire cable, i.e. structurally capable of separately receiving a separate secondary wire cable. It is noted that this limitation is considered to introduce new matter into the claims, as described above.
The inset below teaches that the pair of first cable retention channels are located to a first side of a reference plane, and the plurality of second cable retention channels are located to a second side of the reference plane opposite the first side.
The inset below teaches that a first base side of the first body is coupled to the second base side of the second body.
The inset below teaches that the pair of first cable retention channels share a first common inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that a pair of second cable retention channels share a second common inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that the first common inlet opening opens in a direction directly opposite to the second common inlet opening and orthogonal to the reference plane.
The inset below teaches that channel axes of the first cable retention channels are parallel to channel axes of the second cable retention channels.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 2, the inset above teaches that at least a pair of second cable retention channels have second inlet openings that form a second common inlet opening region for that pair of second cable retention channels.
In reference to Claim 3, the inset above teaches that the first body and the second body are planar bodies (i.e. have planar faces).
Therefore, Soken teaches that the first body is a planar body and the second body is a planar body, wherein the first planar body and second planar body are on a common plane (i.e. the reference plane).
In reference to Claim 4, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the second cable retention channels are aligned in a row, and that there is at least one second cable retention channel for each first cable retention channel.
In reference to Claim 5, the inset below teaches that the first body is formed by at least two connected C-shaped arms connected together at a first separating region of the first body that is positioned at least partially between the pair of first cable retention channels; and the second body is formed by a plurality of connected C-shaped arms connected together at a second separating region of the second body that is positioned at least partially between a pair of the second cable retention channels.
PNG
media_image2.png
379
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 6, Soken teaches that the first body and second body are formed of a same resiliently deformable material, wherein the material is a non-conducting plastic (paragraph [0028]).
In reference to Claim 8, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the first body is coupled to the second body with a joining of a material of the first body and the second body to integrate the first body and second body.
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soken (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0347804 A1).
In reference to Claim 7, the inset below teaches that the first body defines the pair of first cable retention channels that are positioned adjacent to each other and each first cable retention channel is dimensioned to retain a lead wire cable therein.
The inset below teaches that each first cable retention channel is formed by a curved first arm extending from a separating region of the first body that is at least partially between the pair of first cable retention channels, each curved first arm forming a first cable channel opening by a first channel gap between an end of the curved first arm and an end of the separating region, a common gap formed between and by the curved first arm ends as a first inlet region for both of the first cable retention channels in the pair.
The inset below teaches that the second body defines the plurality of second cable retention channels that are positioned adjacent to each other.
The inset below teaches that each second cable retention channel is formed by a curved second arm extending from an adjacent curved second arm, wherein the plurality of second cable retention channels is formed such that each curved second arm forms a second cable channel opening by a second channel gap between an end of the curved second arm and an end of a second separating region at least partially between adjacent second retention channels, a second common gap formed between and by at least one pair of curved second arm ends as a second inlet region for both of the second cable retention channels in the pair.
PNG
media_image3.png
426
749
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Soken does not teach that and each second cable retention channel is dimensioned smaller than each first cable retention channel.
However, he teaches that the channels may be designed to have different diameters, in order to accommodate wires with different dimensions (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to have optimized the dimensions of the cable channels of the device of Soken, based on his disclosure that the dimensions of the channels can be modified according to the wires that are to be accommodated therein.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the second channels being smaller than the first channels, as required by Claim 7, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soken (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0347804 A1), in view of Rand, et al. (WO2021/211788 A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0255300 A1).
In reference to Claim 9, Fig. 8 of Soken does not teach that the clip has the form required by Claim 9.
To solve the same problem of providing a cable holder, Rand teaches that the number and position of the cable holders relative to each other within a cable hanger can be suitably modified, in order to meet the needs of the user (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to have optimized the number and position of the cable channels (relative to each other) of the device of Soken, based on Rand’s disclosure that the number and position of the saddles can be modified according to the needs of the user.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the form required by Claim 9, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to Claim 10, the inset below teaches that the pair of first cable retention channels forms a ω shape and at least two pairs of second cable retention channels form a ω shape.
Modified Soken teaches the number of second cable retention channels in the rejection of Claim 9 above.
The inset below teaches that a center separating region is between the two sets of three second cable retention channels and forms a branch with each branch arm pointing in opposite directions.
The inset below teaches that a curved separating member is between each pair of second cable retention channels and adjacent second cable retention channel of each set, because each channel comprises a curved separating member.
The inset below teaches that openings of each ω shape of the first cable retention channels open away from openings of each ω shape of the second cable retention channels.
PNG
media_image4.png
426
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claims 11-12, Soken teaches a cable arrangement comprising a cable retention clip (Fig. 8, paragraphs [0045]-[0047]).
The inset below teaches that the cable retention clip comprises a first body defining at least a pair of first cable retention channels that are positioned adjacent with each other.
The inset below teaches that each first cable retention channel has a parallel channel axis and a first inlet opening extending a length of each first cable retention channel.
The inset below teaches that the first body has a first base side (i.e. an interior side) opposite of each first inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that the clip comprises a second body defining a plurality of second cable retention channels that are positioned adjacent with each other and that each second cable retention channel has a parallel channel axis and a second inlet opening extending a length of each second cable retention channel.
The inset below teaches that the second body has a second base side (i.e. an interior side) opposite of each second inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that each first cable retention channel of the first pair of cable retention channels is configured to accommodate (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating) a single lead wire cable.
The inset below teaches that each first cable retention channel is accessible to remove or insert a corresponding single lead wire independent of every other lead wire cable, i.e. structurally capable of separately receiving a separate lead wire cable. It is noted that this limitation is considered to introduce new matter into the claims, as described above.
The inset below teaches that each of the plurality of second cable retention channels is configured to accommodate (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating) a single secondary cable wire.
The inset below teaches that each of the plurality of second cable retention channels is accessible to remove or insert a corresponding single secondary wire cable independent of every other secondary wire cable, i.e. structurally capable of separately receiving a separate secondary wire cable. It is noted that this limitation is considered to introduce new matter into the claims, as described above.
The inset below teaches that the pair of first cable retention channels are located to a first side of a reference plane, and the plurality of second cable retention channels are located to a second side of the reference plane opposite the first side.
The inset below teaches that a first base side of the first body is coupled to the second base side of the second body.
The inset below teaches that the pair of first cable retention channels share a first common inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that a pair of second cable retention channels share a second common inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that the first common inlet opening opens in a direction directly opposite to the second common inlet opening and orthogonal to the reference plane.
The inset below teaches that channel axes of the first cable retention channels are parallel to channel axes of the second cable retention channels.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 does not explicitly teach a pair of lead wire cables configured as solar lead wires, each lead wire located in a first cable retention channel; and a plurality of secondary wire cables configured as solar secondary wires, each secondary wire located in a second cable retention channel.
However, Soken teaches that each channel is capable of securing a cable (paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have inserted cables into any of the channels of the device of Soken.
It is the Examiner’s position that the use of the cable securing device of Soken to secure cables in any of the slots of the device would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed configuration recited in Claim 11, without undue experimentation.
Soken does not teach that the cables of his invention are configured as solar lead wires or solar secondary wires.
To solve the same problem of providing a cable holder, Rand teaches that solar installations comprising above-ground cables require cable holders that secure the cables associated with a solar installation in a safe and secure manner (paragraph [0003]).
Soken teaches that the cable holder of his invention secures cables securely (paragraph [0033]), while further providing the benefit of comprising a light source that illuminates the cable holder to create desired colors and effects (paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, absent showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used the cable holder of Soken to hold and illuminate any type of cable, including solar lead and secondary cables in the configuration required by Claims 11 and 12.
In reference to Claim 13, because the first and second cable channels are parallel to each other (Soken, Fig. 8), it is the Examiner’s position that modified Soken teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the plurality of secondary wire cables are lateral to the lead wire cables or held above the pair of lead wire cables by the cable retention clip.
Rand does not explicitly teach that each lead wire cable is self-supporting.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that wire can only be classified into two groups: “self-supporting” or “non-self-supporting.” Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the harness of Rand to house any type of wire, including self-supporting or non-self-supporting wires, since there is only a finite (i.e. two) number of types of wires.
This would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the structure of Claim 13, without undue experimentation.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
In reference to Claim 14, Fig. 2A of Rand teaches that the solar wires of his invention are secured to support wires 10 between adjacent piles of the solar installation (paragraph [0074]).
Therefore, this disclosure teaches that it is suitable and conventional for solar wires to be suspended from messenger/support cables in solar installations.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used the cable holder of Soken in a configuration in which the pair of lead wire cables and the plurality of secondary wire cables are suspended from a messenger cable that is anchored between two structural members, based on the disclosure of Rand.
In reference to Claim 15, the inset below teaches that the pair of first cable retention channels forms a ω shape and at least two pairs of second cable retention channels form a ω shape.
The inset below teaches that a center separating region is between the two sets of three second cable retention channels and forms a branch with each branch arm pointing in opposite directions.
The inset below teaches that a curved separating member is between each pair of second cable retention channels and adjacent second cable retention channel of each set, because each channel comprises a curved separating member.
The inset below teaches that openings of each ω shape of the first cable retention channels open away from openings of each ω shape of the second cable retention channels.
PNG
media_image4.png
426
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Soken does not teach that the clip has three second cable retention channels for each first cable retention channel in the first body.
To solve the same problem of providing a cable holder, Rand teaches that the number and position of the cable holders relative to each other within a cable hanger can be suitably modified, in order to meet the needs of the user (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to have optimized the number and position of the cable channels (relative to each other) of the device of Soken, based on Rand’s disclosure that the number and position of the saddles can be modified according to the needs of the user.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the form required by Claim 15, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to Claim 16, Soken teaches a cable retention clip (Fig. 8, paragraphs [0045]-[0047]).
The inset below teaches that the cable retention clip comprises a first body defining at least a pair of first cable retention channels that are positioned adjacent with each other.
The inset below teaches that each first cable retention channel has a parallel channel axis and a first inlet opening extending a length of each first cable retention channel.
The inset below teaches that the first body has a first base side (i.e. an interior side) opposite of each first inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that the clip comprises a second body defining a plurality of second cable retention channels that are positioned adjacent with each other and that each second cable retention channel has a parallel channel axis and a second inlet opening extending a length of each second cable retention channel.
The inset below teaches that the second body has a second base side (i.e. an interior side) opposite of each second inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that each first cable retention channel of the first pair of cable retention channels is configured to accommodate (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating) a single lead wire cable.
The inset below teaches that each first cable retention channel is accessible to remove or insert a corresponding single lead wire independent of every other lead wire cable, i.e. structurally capable of separately receiving a separate lead wire cable. It is noted that this limitation is considered to introduce new matter into the claims, as described above.
The inset below teaches that each of the plurality of second cable retention channels is configured to accommodate (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating) a single secondary cable wire.
The inset below teaches that each of the plurality of second cable retention channels is accessible to remove or insert a corresponding single secondary wire cable independent of every other secondary wire cable, i.e. structurally capable of separately receiving a separate secondary wire cable. It is noted that this limitation is considered to introduce new matter into the claims, as described above.
The inset below teaches that the pair of first cable retention channels are located to a first side of a reference plane, and the plurality of second cable retention channels are located to a second side of the reference plane opposite the first side.
The inset below teaches that a first base side of the first body is coupled to the second base side of the second body.
The inset below teaches that the pair of first cable retention channels share a first common inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that a pair of second cable retention channels share a second common inlet opening.
The inset below teaches that the first common inlet opening opens in a direction directly opposite to the second common inlet opening and orthogonal to the reference plane.
The inset below teaches that channel axes of the first cable retention channels are parallel to channel axes of the second cable retention channels.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 does not explicitly teach a pair of lead wire cables configured as solar lead wires, each lead wire located in a first cable retention channel; and a plurality of secondary wire cables configured as solar secondary wires, each secondary wire located in a second cable retention channel.
However, Soken teaches that each channel is capable of securing a cable (paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have inserted cables into any of the channels of the device of Soken.
It is the Examiner’s position that the use of the cable securing device of Soken to secure cables in any of the slots of the device would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed configuration recited in Claim 11, without undue experimentation.
Soken does not teach that the cables of his invention are configured as solar lead wires or solar secondary wires.
To solve the same problem of providing a cable holder, Rand teaches that solar installations comprising above-ground cables require cable holders that secure the cables associated with a solar installation in a safe and secure manner, and that are connected to solar panels (paragraph [0003]).
Soken teaches that the cable holder of his invention secures cables securely (paragraph [0033]), while further providing the benefit of comprising a light source that illuminates the cable holder to create desired colors and effects (paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, absent showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used the cable holder of Soken to hold and illuminate any type of cable, including solar lead and secondary cables in the configuration required by Claim 16.
Using the cable holder of Soken to hold and illuminate solar lead and secondary cables in the first and second wire retention channels, wherein the cables are electrically connected to solar panels, teaches the limitations of Claim 16 directed to the wiring and solar panel.
In reference to Claim 17, Fig. 2A of Rand teaches that the cable retention clip holds the pair of lead wires and the plurality of secondary wire cables above ground.
Therefore, modified Soken teaches the limitations of Claim 17.
In reference to Claim 18, Rand does not explicitly teach that each lead wire cable is self-supporting.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that wire can only be classified into two groups: “self-supporting” or “non-self-supporting.” Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the harness of Rand to house any type of wire, including self-supporting or non-self-supporting wires, since there is only a finite (i.e. two) number of types of wires.
This would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the structure of Claim 18, without undue experimentation.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
In reference to Claim 19, because the first and second cable channels are parallel to each other (Soken, Fig. 8), it is the Examiner’s position that modified Soken teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein the plurality of secondary wire cables are at least one of: suspended from the pair of lead wire cables by the cable retention clip; lateral to the lead wire cables coupled therewith by the cable retention clip; or held above the pair of lead wire cables by the cable retention clip.
In reference to Claim 20, the inset below teaches that the pair of first cable retention channels forms a ω shape and at least two pairs of second cable retention channels form a ω shape.
The inset below teaches that a center separating region is between the two sets of three second cable retention channels and forms a branch with each branch arm pointing in opposite directions.
The inset below teaches that a curved separating member is between each pair of second cable retention channels and adjacent second cable retention channel of each set, because each channel comprises a curved separating member.
The inset below teaches that openings of each ω shape of the first cable retention channels open away from openings of each ω shape of the second cable retention channels.
PNG
media_image4.png
426
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Soken does not teach that the clip has three second cable retention channels for each first cable retention channel in the first body.
To solve the same problem of providing a cable holder, Rand teaches that the number and position of the cable holders relative to each other within a cable hanger can be suitably modified, in order to meet the needs of the user (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to have optimized the number and position of the cable channels (relative to each other) of the device of Soken, based on Rand’s disclosure that the number and position of the saddles can be modified according to the needs of the user.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the form required by Claim 15, without undue experimentation.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made herein under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 112(a).
The double patenting rejections of record are respectfully maintained.
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached on 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights