This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18/413841.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21-25 recites the limitation "electrical cable hanger" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the intermediate portion" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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.
(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, 21-23, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Tanzar 3,547,392. The applicant is reminded that the first structure, second structure, and electrical cabling is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the first structure, second structure, and electrical cabling.
Tanzar discloses claims:
1. A hanger for hanging electrical cabling, the hanger comprising: a first end comprising a first connector 4A for attaching to a first structure; a second end comprising a second connector 4 for attaching to a second structure (display standard post 16) different from the first structure (another display standard post 16); and a middle portion (see figure below) extending an entire length between the first connector 4A and the second connector 4 for hanging the electrical cabling, wherein the middle portion 3A is substantially straight for the entire length between the first connector 4A and the second connector 4, and wherein the first connector 4A and the second connector 4 comprise identical harpoon style hooks.
10. The hanger as recited in claim 1, wherein the hanger comprises a rod.
21.The electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 1, wherein each harpoon style hook comprises a substantially V-shaped bend extending between the intermediate portion and a distal end tip.
22. The electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 21, wherein each harpoon-style hook is configured to hook through holes (holes in each post 16 between sides 15) in the structure.
23. The electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 22, wherein a distance between the distal end tip and the middle portion is greater than a diameter of the holes in the first structure (the distance distal end tip 5A and 5 and middle portion 3 is greater than a diameter of the holes of the first structure 16, see Column 2, lines 13-15 which teaches the distal end tip is compressed to fit in hole of structure therefore larger than diameter of hole).
25. wherein an angle between the middle portion and the distal end tip is between approximately 20 degrees to 40 degrees.
26. The hanger as recited in claim 1, wherein each harpoon style hook comprises a substantially V-shaped bend extending between the middle portion and a distal end tip.
27. The hanger as recited in claim 26, wherein the first connector attaches to a hole in the first structure and the second connector attaches to a hole in the second structure.
28. The hanger as recited in claim 27, wherein a distance between the distal end tip and the middle portion is greater than a diameter of the hole in the first structure.
30. wherein an angle between the middle portion and the distal end tip is between approximately 20 degrees to 40 degrees.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (V-shaped bend)][AltContent: textbox (V-shaped bend)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First end
First connector 4A
Middle portion 3
Distal tip 5A
Distal tip 5
Second end )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Harpoon style hooks)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
260
128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanzar 3,547,392 in view of Smith et al. (Smith) 9,800,028. The applicant is reminded that the first structure, second structure, and electrical cabling is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the first structure, second structure, and electrical cabling.
Tanzar discloses it is known to have claims:
12. An electrical cable hanger for hanging electrical cable from a structure, the electrical cable hanger comprising: a segment of spring material comprising a first end, a second end and an intermediate section between the first end and the second end; and wherein the first end and the second end comprise identical harpoon-style hooks configured to be hooked to the structure and the intermediate section extends an entire length between the harpoon-style hooks and is configured for hanging the electrical cable, wherein the intermediate portion is substantially straight for the entire length between the harpoon-style hooks.
[AltContent: textbox (First end
First connector 4A
Distal tip 5A
Intermediate section3
Distal tip 5
Second end )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (V-shaped ben)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (V-shaped bend)][AltContent: textbox (Harpoon style hooks)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
260
128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tanzar discloses all of the limitations except for the spring steel and stainless steel.
Smith teaches that it is known to have claims
11. The hanger as recited in claim 10, wherein the rod comprises stainless steel.
19. The electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 12, wherein the spring steel comprises a rod (column 3, lines 52-55).
20. The electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 19, wherein the spring steel comprises stainless steel (column 3, lines 52-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Tanzar to have wherein the spring steel comprises a rod and wherein the spring steel comprises stainless steel as taught by Smith, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice since Tanzar provides the motivation or suggestion for such a modification by teaching of a spring type rod within the specification. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 24, 25, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanzar 3,547,392.
Tanzar discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for wherein the distance between the distal end tip and the middle portion is between approximately 0.2 inches and 0.5 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have wherein the distance between the distal end tip and the middle portion is between approximately 0.2 inches and 0.5 inches since A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Modified Tanzar teaches claims:
24. The electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 23, wherein the distance between the distal end tip and the middle portion is between approximately 0.2 inches and 0.5 inches.
25. The electrical cable hanger as recited in claim 24, wherein an angle between the middle portion and the distal end tip is between approximately 20 degrees to 40 degrees.
29. The hanger as recited in claim 28, wherein the distance between the distal end tip and the middle portion is between approximately 0.2 inches and 0.5 inches.
30. The hanger as recited in claim 29, wherein an angle between the middle portion and the distal end tip is between approximately 20 degrees to 40 degrees.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejected 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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 (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights