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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8 of Group I were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 26, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 9-19 in the reply filed on March 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious search burden since the groups have overlapping structural limitations. Upon further consideration, this is found persuasive and the restriction requirement is withdrawn, all claims 1-19 will be examined in the action below.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goergen et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0252335, from hereinafter “Goergen”) in view of Grelck (US Patent No. 7,952,027).
Regarding claim 1, Goergen teaches a cable storage device comprising: a frame comprising an elongated spine (cable bracket 300) having first and second ends and one or more elongated cross-arm members, each cross-arm member having first and second ends, and wherein each cross-arm member is fixedly attached to said spine; said frame mounting a plurality of cable guides (304A, 304B) positioned outward from said frame and configured to receive and retain an amount of slack cable within said plurality of cable guides in such a configuration to maintain at least a minimum bend radius of the slack cable; and one or more offset mounting brackets (cable management bracket 320), each offset mounting bracket having a base fixedly attached to said frame and a mounting clamp opposite said base configured for selective engagement with a cable strand for mounting said cable storage device from said cable strand (see Figs 3A-3B, paragraphs 30-31).
Goergen fails to specifically teach the use of a plurality of cross-arm members.
Grelck teaches a cable management system with multiple arms (stational channel portions 14) (see Figure 1, col 2, lines 23-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ multiple cross-arm members for stability within the cable management system, which is favorable for an efficient system of monitoring the storage of cables.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are 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.
Claims 9-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The best prior art of record fails to specifically teach the structural limitations of the claims, for example in claim 4 wherein each of said first cable guide and said second cable guide extend outward distally at approximately a 45-degree angle from said first cross-arm member; and each of said third cable guide and said fourth cable guide extend outward distally at approximately a 45-degree angle from said second cross-arm member. Regarding independent claims 9 (cable storage device) and 15 (method of storing slack cable), once again the structural arrangements were not taught by the prior art, for example an elongated first cross-arm member having first and second ends and fixedly attached to said spine near said first end of said spine, an elongated second cross-arm member having first and second ends and fixedly attached to said spine near said second end of said spine, and a plurality of cable guides comprising a first cable guide mounted and positioned outward from the first end of said first cross-arm member, a second cable guide mounted and positioned outward from the second end of said first cross-arm member, a third cable guide mounted and positioned outward from the first end of said second cross-arm member, and a fourth cable guide mounted and positioned outward from the second end of said second cross-arm member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Patent No. 7,022,916 to Cavanaugh et al., who teaches techniques for controlling movement of a set of cables.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA M CAPUTO whose telephone number is (571)272-2388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/LISA M CAPUTO/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights