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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 16, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 3,240,463 to Cook (Cook).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Cook discloses a hanger for securing electrical cabling to a structure, the hanger comprising: a cable holding portion (See Annotated Fig. A) provided at a distal end (See Annotated Fig. A) of the hanger for holding one or more cables to be secured; a hook portion (See Annotated Fig. A) provided at a proximal end (See Annotated Fig. A) portion of the hanger for hooking to the structure; and a locking clip portion (See Annotated Fig. A) provided intermediate of the cable holding portion and the hook portion for clipping the hanger to and securing the hanger to the structure, wherein the hook portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and the locking clip portion (See Annotated Fig. A) are provided in a same first plane (See Annotated Fig. A) and wherein the cable holding portion (See Annotated Fig. A) is provided in second plane (See Annotated Fig. A) different than the first plane (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 2: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger for securing a electrical cable to a structure, the electrical cable hanger comprising: a segment of wire (See Annotated Fig. A) comprising a proximal end (See Annotated Fig. A) and a distal end (See Annotated Fig. A); a cable holding portion (See Annotated Fig. A) provided at the distal end of the segment of wire for holding one or more cables to be secured; and at least one locking clip portion (See Annotated Fig. A) provided between the proximal end and the distal end of the segment of wire for clipping the hanger to and securing the hanger to the structure, wherein the proximal end (See Annotated Fig. A) and the at least one locking clip portion (See Annotated Fig. A) are provided in a same first plane (See Annotated Fig. A) and wherein the cable holding portion (See Annotated Fig. A) is provided in a second plane (See Annotated Fig. A) different than the first plane (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 3: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 2, wherein the at least one locking clip portion (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises a space (See Annotated Fig. A) for receiving a portion of the structure to which the cable hanger is to be attached.
Regarding Claim 4: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 3, wherein the space (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises a substantially U-shaped bend (See Annotated Fig. A) in the segment of wire.
Regarding Claim 5: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 4, further comprising a section of wire extending into an area longitudinally below the U-shaped bend (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 6: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 5, wherein the section of wire comprises a substantially V-shaped bend (See Annotated Fig. A) in the segment of wire.
Regarding Claim 7: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 2, wherein the at least one locking clip portion (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises two locking clip portions (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 8: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 7, wherein each of the locking clip portions comprise a space (See Annotated Fig. A) for receiving separate portions of the structure to which the cable hanger is to be attached.
Regarding Claim 9: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 8, wherein each space (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises a substantially U-shaped bend (See Annotated Fig. A) in the segment of wire.
Regarding Claim 10: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 9, further comprising sections (See Annotated Fig. A) of wire extending into areas longitudinally below the U-shaped bends (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 12: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 8, wherein a width (See generally Annotated Fig. A) of each of the locking clip portions (See Annotated Fig. A) has a width smaller than or similar to a thickness of the structure to which the cable hanger is to be attached.
Regarding Claim 13: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 12, wherein the locking clip portions (See Annotated Fig. A) provide a compression fit (See generally Annotated Fig. A how the locking clip portions are compressed down onto the structure surface) to the structure to which the cable hanger is to be attached.
Regarding Claim 15: Cook discloses an electrical cable management system comprising: a segment of wire comprising, a distal end portion (See Annotated Fig. A) configured as a cable carrier for holding one or more cables; a proximal end portion (See Annotated Fig. A) comprising a clip portion (See Annotated Fig. A) configured to clip onto a first portion of a frame; and an intermediate portion (See Annotated Fig. A) comprising a clip portion (See Annotated Fig. A) configured to clip onto a second portion of the frame, wherein the proximal end portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and the intermediate portion (See Annotated Fig. A) are provided in a same first plane (See Annotated Fig. A) and wherein the distal end portion (See Annotated Fig. A) is provided in a second plane (See Annotated Fig. A) different than the first plane (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 16: Cook discloses an electrical cable management system as recited in claim 15, wherein the distal end portion comprises a loop (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 17: Cook discloses an electrical cable management system as recited in claim 16, wherein the loop comprises an open loop (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 18: Cook discloses an electrical cable management system as recited in claim 15, wherein the clip portions comprise spaces (See Annotated Fig. A) for receiving portions of a bracket to which the cable hanger is to be attached.
Regarding Claim 19: Cook discloses an electrical cable management system, as recited in claim 18, wherein the spaces comprise substantially U-shaped bend (See Annotated Fig. A) in the segment of wire.
Regarding Claim 20: Cook discloses an electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 18, wherein the segment of wire further comprises sections of wire (See Annotated Fig. A) extending into areas longitudinally below the U-shaped bends.
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.
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) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook in view of US Patent No. 5,476,240 to McDonough (McDonough).
Regarding Claim 14: Cook discloses a device that is a wire rod1. Cook does not disclose the wire comprises spring steel. However, McDonough teaches a segment of wire that comprises spring steel.2 It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Cook by using spring steel metal similar to that taught by McDonough to provide a durable resilient material that enables the mounting and supporting of an object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Cook is the closest prior art. Neither Cook nor the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, teaches or discloses a hanger of Claim 10 wherein the sections of wire both comprise substantially V-shaped bends.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 4957259, 2022/0060006, D275527.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See Col. 1, line 67 of Cook.
2 See Col. 2, lines 44-46 of McDonough.
Prosecution Insights