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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-15 are pending;
Claims 1-4 and 5-8 are currently amended; claims 3-4 and 9-15 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 5, 6-8 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hsu (U.S. Pat./Pub. No. 7758217 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches a cable clamp, comprising: a body (10), provided with at least one threading hole (120) through which a cable passes, and at least one elastic [inherent, at least to some extent] blocking tooth (32) set inside the at least one threading hole, the at least one elastic blocking tooth comprising a root (portion attached to 30) and an outer end (end of 32 contacting 200) each, the root of the blocking tooth being fixed to an inner wall of the threading hole and extending from the inner wall towards a middle of the at least one threading hole;
if there are more than one blocking teeth in the same threading hole, a holding position for the cable to pass through and be holdered being formed between the outer ends of all the blocking teeth in the same threading hole, and if there is only one blocking tooth in the same threading hole, the holding position being formed between the inner wall opposite to the blocking tooth and the outer end of the blocking tooth [see Fig. 3 for configuration].
Regarding claim 2, Hsu teaches the sidewall of the threading hole is provided with an opening (140) that communicates with the threading hole.
Regarding claim 5, Hsu teaches the bottom of the body of the cable holder is provided with a fixing component (20) used to fix the cable holder to an external object.
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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (U.S. Pat./Pub. No. 7758217 B2) in view of Chen (U.S. Pat. No. 20140014787 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hsu teaches the fixing component. However, Hsu does not explicitly teach the fixing component is an adhesive layer or a suction cup. Chen teaches the fixing component is an adhesive layer (Chen; 21).
There are a finite number of choices available to one of ordinary skill in the art for fixing the component as evidenced by Chen e.g. Fig. 1B of Chen discloses insertion anchor as the fixing component and Fig. 2A discloses the adhesive layer as the fixing component. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the invention of Hsu having the adhesive layer. The motivation would have been to facilitate the attachment of the cable clamp.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (U.S. Pat./Pub. No. 7758217 B2) in view of McMillan (U.S. Pat. No. 4267995).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu teaches in that the blocking teeth. However, Hsu is silent to disclose the blocking teeth are made of an elastic plastic material. McMillan teaches the blocking teeth (McMillan: 22) are made of an elastic plastic material (McMillan; Col. 2; lines 19-21).
Hsu and McMillan are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cable clamp of Hsu made of elastic plastic material. The motivation would have been to make the invention resilient to accommodate various diameter of the cables.
Regarding claim 8, Hsu as modified teaches the material of the body (10) of the cable holder is consistent with that of the blocking teeth, and the body and the blocking teeth are integrally formed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631