DETAILED ACTION
This is the fifth office action for US Application 18/379,319 for a Cable Hanger.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-10, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0347727 to Shea et al. Regarding claim 1, Shea et al. discloses a cable hanger (see figure 7) structured to support a number of elongated current lines (210, 215). The cable hanger comprises a body defining a support coupling (105) and a number of supported element couplings (110, 115), wherein the support coupling is a rigid element support coupling (see paragraph 0017). The support coupling is structured to be fixedly coupled with a torque tube of a solar panel installation (see figure 7… support element 105 extends inward on each side, thereby fixing the elongate object 200 relative to the coupling.
Regarding claim 3, the body is made from a generally rigid material (see paragraph 0017), and the rigid element support coupling is a gripping rigid element support coupling (see paragraph 0017). Regarding claim 5, the support coupling is structured to be coupled to an elongated support element (200). Each support element coupling is structured to be coupled to an elongated support element (210, 215). Also, each supported element coupling is structured to support an elongated support element so that the longitudinal axis of each of the supported elements extends generally parallel to the elongated support element (see figures 5-7).
Regarding claim 7, each supported element is one of a generally enclosed coupling, a partially encircling coupling, a generally helical coupling or locking coupling. Regarding claim 8, the body includes a coating that is disposed over substantially all of the body (see para 0017). Regarding claim 9, the body is a unitary body. Regarding claim 10, the body is a slightly flexible body (couplings 110 and 115 flex to lock and unlock).
Regarding claim 21, the supported element coupling is a partially encircling coupling. Regarding claim 22, each supported element coupling is a generally helical coupling. Regarding claim 23, the supported element coupling is a locking coupling. Regarding claim 24, the coating comprises a PVC plastisol (see para 0017).
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) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shea et al. Shea et al. does not specifically disclose the rigid support coupling as a regular convex polygonal rigid element support coupling. However, the specific shape of the coupling is a design preference that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the desired fit between the coupling and an object from which is hangs or that it supports.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shea et al. in view of US 2020/0403390 to Jette. Regarding claim 4, Shea et al. does not specifically disclose the support coupling as an outwardly flexing gripping rigid element support coupling. Jette provides a teaching for providing a cable hanger with a gripping rigid element support coupling (125) that is an outwardly flexing gripping rigid support element coupling, for securing the hanger on an elongated member (see para 0060). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided a gripping rigid element support coupling with an outwardly flexing gripping rigid support coupling on the cable hanger of Shea et al., to secure the hanger on an elongated member from which it hangs as taught by Jette.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0347727 to Shea et al. in view of US 2022/0074522 to Stubben et al. Shea et al. an arrangement structured to support a number of elongated current lines along a conduit. Shea et al. discloses a cable hanger (see figure 7) structured to support a number of elongated current lines (210, 215). The cable hanger comprises a body defining a support coupling (105) and a number of supported element couplings (110, 115), wherein the support coupling is a rigid element support coupling (see paragraph 0017).
Shea et al. does not disclose a torque tube. Stubben provides a teaching of rigidly coupling a cable hanger (see figure 6… 10) to a torque tube (36). Because both Shea et al. and Stubben disclose cable hangers for suspending cables from a conduit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have utilized the cable hanger of Shea et al. to achieve the predictable result of suspending cables from a torque tube.
Response to Arguments
With respect to claims 1-10 and 21-24, Applicant's arguments filed 10 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a coupling that is structure to be supported by a substantially rigid, elongated element or “fixedly” coupled) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Shea does not disclose the use of a torque tube, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The claim language requires that “said coupling is structured to be rigidly coupled with a torque tube of a solar panel installation” and Shea is capable of performing that intended use.
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 STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 pm.
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 on 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.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632